DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Seydel v. Reuber, 94 N.W.2d 265.

33 citing documents.

  • Lee Michael Scheurer v. Douglas Shrewsbury as Special Administrator for the Estate of Ann Maland, Deceased,... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • Lee Michael Scheurer v. Douglas Shrewsbury as Special Administrator for the Estate of Ann Maland, Deceased,... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    The district court determined that the requirement that an action be commenced within two years of a written notice of 3 Additur is, “the practice of the [distict] court to condition a denial of a new trial on the defendant’s consent to an increase in the verdict.” Blehr, d at 624 ().
  • Eric John Blehr, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    Additur is “the practice of the [district] court to condition a denial of a new trial on the defendant’s consent to an increase in the verdict.” Seydel v. Reuber
  • Raze v. Mueller 587 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1999
  • Raze v. Mueller 587 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1999
    See Levienn v. Metropolitan Transit Comm’n, -74 (Minn.1980) (citing Seydel v. Reuber, 254 Minn. 168, 173 , ).
  • ERICKSON BY ERICKSON v. Hammermeister 458 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • ERICKSON BY ERICKSON v. Hammermeister 458 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    The dissent relies upon Seydel v. Reuber, 254 Minn. 168, 173 , which establishes two tests to determine the adequacy of additur.
  • Bartosch v. Lewison 413 N.W.2d 530 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Bartosch v. Lewison 413 N.W.2d 530 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Seydel v. Reuber, 254 Minn. 168, 173
  • Flanagan v. Lindberg 398 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Flanagan v. Lindberg 398 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Seydel v. Reuber, 254 Minn. 168,173
  • Clark v. Johnson Bros. Construction 370 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Clark v. Johnson Bros. Construction 370 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    (quoting Seydel v. Reuber, 254 Minn. 168, 173 , ).
  • Levienn v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 297 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 1980
  • Levienn v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 297 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 1980
    We have previously remarked that *274 “a mere nominal award will not suffice if substantial general damages are proved.” Seydel v. Reuber, 254 Minn. 168, 173
  • Pehrson v. Kistner 222 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 1974
  • Pehrson v. Kistner 222 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 1974
    Walser v. Vinge, 275 Minn. 230 , Seydel v. Reuber, 254 Minn. 168 , Hurr v. Johnston, 242 Minn. 329 , *303 (1954).
  • Smith v. Rekucki 177 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1970
  • Smith v. Rekucki 177 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1970
    Flaugh v. Egan Chevrolet, Inc. 202 Minn. 615 , ; Olson v. Christiansen, 230 Minn. 198 , 41 N. W. (2d) 248 ; Seydel v. Reuber, 254 Minn. 168 , 94 N. W. (2d) 265 .
  • Kloos v. Soo Line Railroad 176 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 1970
  • Kloos v. Soo Line Railroad 176 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 1970
    It was pointed out in Seydel v. Reuber, 254 Minn. 168 , 94 N. W. (2d) 265, 266 , that “an additur increasing the verdict will not cure the deficiency if the amount of the recovery, in spite of the additur, still remains less than the amount of the special damages proved” and that a “mere nominal award will not suffice if substantial general damages are proved.” In Hurr v
  • Sessler v. Goldfarb 167 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 1969
  • Sessler v. Goldfarb 167 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 1969
    Hill v. Ross, 198 Minn. 199 , ; Flaugh v. Egan Chevrolet, Inc. 202 Minn. 615 , ; Caswell v. Minar Motor Co. 240 Minn. 213 , 60 N. W. (2d) 263 ; Stacy v. Goff, 241 Minn. 301 , 62 N. W. (2d) 920 ; Hurr v. Johnston, 242 Minn. 329 , 65 N. W. (2d) 193 ; Fortier v. Newman, 248 Minn. 69 , 78 N. W. (2d) 382 ; Seydel v. Reuber, 254 Minn. 168 , 94 N. W. (2d) 265 ; Walser v. Vinge, 275 Minn. 230 , 146 N. W. (2d) 537 .
  • Walser v. Vinge 146 N.W.2d 537 Minn. 1966
  • Walser v. Vinge 146 N.W.2d 537 Minn. 1966
    Among the more recent cases reviewed by this court which relate to the inadequacy of verdicts allegedly resulting from passion and prejudice of the jury are Hurr v. Johnston, 242 Minn. 329 , 65 N. W. (2d) 193 ; Seydel v. Reuber, 254 Minn. 168 , 94 N. W. (2d) 265 ; Dziuk v. Loehrer, 266 Minn. 153 , 123 N. W. (2d) 86 ; Stacy v. Goff, 241 Minn. 301 , 62 N. W. (2d) 920 ; and Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144 , 111 N. W. (2d) 526 .
  • State, by Mondale v. Mecklenburg 140 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1966
  • State, by Mondale v. Mecklenburg 140 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1966
    This is true also of Seydel v. Reuber, 254 Minn. 168 , 94 N. W. (2d) 265 , also cited by the owners.
  • Backman v. Fitch 137 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1965
  • Backman v. Fitch 137 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1965
    He cites in support of his contentions Seydel v. Reuber, 254 Minn. 168 , 94 N. W. (2d) 265 ; Stacy v. Goff, 241 Minn. 301 , 62 N. W. (2d) 920 ; Caswell v. Minar Motor Co. 240 Minn. 213 , 60 N. W. (2d) 263 ; and Olson v. Christiansen, 230 Minn. 198 , 41 N. W. (2d) 248 .
  • Dziuk v. Loehrer 123 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 1963
  • Dziuk v. Loehrer 123 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 1963
    4 See, Seydel v. Reuber, 254 Minn. 168 , 94 N. W. (2d) 265 ; Genzel v. Halvorson, 248 Minn. 527 , 80 N. W. (2d) 854 ; Olson v. Christiansen, 230 Minn. 198 , 41 N. W. (2d) 248 .
  • Krueger v. Knutson 111 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 1961
  • Krueger v. Knutson 111 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 1961
    Co. 142 Minn. 14 , ; Seydel v. Reuber, 254 Minn. 168 , 94 N. W. (2d) 265 .