Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 104 N.W.2d 721.

67 citing documents.

Jacob Becker, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“[A] new trial for prejudicial argument is granted only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel
In the Matter of the Application of: Hollis John Larson for a Change of Name. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See, (discussing district court’s discretion to instruct jury to make adverse inference regarding failure to call witness).
State v. Wilson 900 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2017
State v. Wilson 900 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2017
(“[A] lawyer may not speculate without a factual basis.” ()); -20 (Minn. 1980) (“Counsel have the right to present to the jury all legitimate arguments on the evidence, to analyze and explain the evidence, and to present all proper inferences to be drawn therefrom.” (citing Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405 , )).
In re the Estate of Marie Josephine Gabrysh, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405, 419, , 731 (1960).
Poston v. Colestock 540 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Poston v. Colestock 540 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
A trial court’s response to improper remarks in closing argument “is governed by no fixed rules but rests almost wholly in [its] discretion * * *.” Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405, 407
Mertes v. Estate of King 501 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Mertes v. Estate of King 501 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405, 419-20 , (counsel is given wide latitude in closing argument so long as it is based on the evidence and proper inferences therefrom).
Hahn v. Tri-Line Farmers Co-Op 478 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Hahn v. Tri-Line Farmers Co-Op 478 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405
Schmitt v. Anderson 472 N.W.2d 189 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Schmitt v. Anderson 472 N.W.2d 189 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
“The granting of a new trial rests almost entirely in the discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only for a clear abuse of discretion.” Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405, 407
Johnson v. Southern Minnesota MacHinery Sales, Inc. 460 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Johnson v. Southern Minnesota MacHinery Sales, Inc. 460 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(citing Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405 , ).
Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Co. v. Retrum 456 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Co. v. Retrum 456 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
-70 (Minn.App.1987) (citing Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405, 407 , (denial of motion for a new trial will be reversed only if trial court clearly abuses its discretion)).
Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. 445 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. 445 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405, 420
Jewett v. Deutsch 437 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Jewett v. Deutsch 437 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405, 407
Markowitz v. Ness 413 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Markowitz v. Ness 413 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405, 407
State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 413 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ness v. Ylvisaker 412 N.W.2d 769 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ness v. Ylvisaker 412 N.W.2d 769 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405, 407
State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 413 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405, 407
Anderson v. Rumsey 398 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Anderson v. Rumsey 398 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The trial court was able to observe any possible prejudicial effect the attorney’s comments had on the jury, see Stroncek, 292 Minn, at 65, d at 291, and “will be reversed on appeal only for a clear abuse of discretion.” Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405, 407 , (footnote omitted).
Law v. Essick Manufacturing Co. 396 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Law v. Essick Manufacturing Co. 396 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-26 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (citing Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405, 407 , ).
Tews v. Husqvarna, Inc. 390 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Tews v. Husqvarna, Inc. 390 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405, 407
Arney v. Helbig 383 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Arney v. Helbig 383 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405
Helwig v. Olson 376 N.W.2d 763 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Helwig v. Olson 376 N.W.2d 763 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-26 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (citing Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405, 407 , ).
Sather v. Snedigar 372 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Sather v. Snedigar 372 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405, 407
Weber Ex Rel. Sanft v. Goetzke 371 N.W.2d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Weber Ex Rel. Sanft v. Goetzke 371 N.W.2d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405, 419
Westbrook State Bank v. Johnson 358 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Westbrook State Bank v. Johnson 358 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405, 407
City of Ogema v. Bevins 341 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
City of Ogema v. Bevins 341 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
Connelly v. Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405
State v. Wahlberg 296 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1980
State v. Wahlberg 296 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1980
Connolly v. The *420 Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405, 419-20
Bisbee v. Ruppert 235 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 1975
Bisbee v. Ruppert 235 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 1975
Jacobs v. Draper, 274 Minn. 110 , Connolly v. The Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405 , Meagher v. Kavli, 256 Minn. 54 , 14A Dunnell, Dig.
Malik v. Johnson 219 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 1974

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by