DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McCormick v. Malecha, 122 N.W.2d 446.

26 citing documents.

  • Gillson v. State Department of Natural Resources 492 N.W.2d 835 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • Alevizos v. METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COM'N 452 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • Alevizos v. METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COM'N 452 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    McCormick v. Malecha, 266 Minn. 33, 38
  • Elias v. City of St. Paul 350 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Bigham v. J. C. Penney Co. 268 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1978
  • Bigham v. J. C. Penney Co. 268 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1978
    Moteberg v. Johnson, 297 Minn. 28 , McCormick v. Malecha, 266 Minn. 33 , Carmody v. Aho, 251 Minn. 19
  • Hake v. Soo Line Railway Co. 258 N.W.2d 576 Minn. 1977
  • Hake v. Soo Line Railway Co. 258 N.W.2d 576 Minn. 1977
    We will interfere with the trial court’s decision only where “there is a plain injustice or a monstrous or shocking result,” Kennedy v. Caudell, 277 Minn. 35, 39 , or where “it is fairly evident that the trial judge failed to keep the jury within the bounds of reason and common sense.” McCormick v. Malecha, 266 Minn. 33, 43
  • Russell v. Strohochein 233 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1975
  • Russell v. Strohochein 233 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1975
    The general rule on appellate review has been expressed in Kennedy v. Caudell, 277 Minn. 35, 39 , : “* * * [Ejxcessiveness of a verdict is a matter basically for the trial court and * * * we interfere only in those rare situations where there is a plain injustice or a monstrous or shocking result.” In McCormick v. Malecha, 266 Minn. 33, 43 , this court elaborated on its task in such cases: “* * * [Ajppellate courts are slow to interfere with the determination of the trial court unless it clearly
  • Nicosia v. Miller 224 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 1974
  • Janssen v. Neal 223 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 1974
  • Nicosia v. Miller 224 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 1974
    See, McCormick v. Malecha, 266 Minn. 33
  • Janssen v. Neal 223 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 1974
    And there will be a great temptation to want to award the Janssens something.” Plaintiff contends, first, that this comment is improper as an appeal for sympathy, citing McCormick v. Malecha, 266 Minn. 33 , as analogous.
  • Soltis v. Geary 176 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 1970
  • Soltis v. Geary 176 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 1970
    2 See, also, Tanski v. Jackson, 269 Minn. 304 , 130 N. W. (2d) 492 ; McCormick v. Malecha, 266 Minn. 33 , 122 N. W. (2d) 446 .
  • Brown v. Kaminski 152 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1967
  • Brown v. Kaminski 152 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1967
    here plaintiff, age 58, was not visibly injured and had subjective pains not medically attributable to abnormalities); Gordon v. Land of Lakes Motor Co. (1962) 262 Minn. 97 , 113 N. W. (2d) 576 (verdict of $7,500 reduced to $5,000 where, despite absence of objective signs of injury, plaintiff complained of headaches and neck pains which she attributed to the accident); McCormick v. Malecha (1963) 266 Minn. 33 , 122 N. W. (2d) 446 (verdict of $19,000 reduced to $15,000 where plaintiff, after acci
  • Kennedy v. Caudell 151 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1967
  • Kennedy v. Caudell 151 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1967
    In McCormick v. Malecha, 266 Minn. 33, 43 , 122 N. W. (2d) 446, 453 , we said: “* * * The criteria expressed in some decisions — that the verdict should not be revised unless it shocks the court’s sense of justice and *40 the impropriety of allowing the verdict to stand is so manifest as to show a clear abuse of discretion, or unless it is fairly evident
  • Colgan v. Raymond 146 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 1966
  • Colgan v. Raymond 146 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 1966
    (3 ed.) § 394; Thiesen v. Hellermann, 242 Minn. 218 , 64 N. W. (2d) 762 ; Annotation, 29 A. L. R. (2d) 1201 to 1213; Zaikaner v. Small, 256 Minn. 275 , 98 N. W. (2d) 247 ; McCormick v. Malecha, 266 Minn. 33 , 122 N. W. (2d) 446 ; Clark v. Chicago & N. W. Ry.
  • Monson v. Matheson 140 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 1966
  • Monson v. Matheson 140 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 1966
    Although there is no prior decision of this court dealing with the precise factual situation here involved, these authorities are relevant and helpful: Brady v. Kroll, 244 Minn. 525 , 70 N. W. (2d) 354 ; McCormick v. Malecha, 266 Minn. 33 , 122 N. W. (2d) 446 ; Cook v. Person, 246 Minn. 119 , 74 N. W. (2d) 389 ; Kime v. Koch, 227 Minn. 372 , 35 N. W. (2d) 534 ; Stedman v. Norlin, 243 Minn. 389 , 68 N. W. (2d) 393 ; Cosgrove v. McGonagle, 196 Minn. 6 , ; Kapla v. Lehti, 225 Minn. 325 , 30 N. W. (
  • Auger v. Rofshus 125 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1963
  • Auger v. Rofshus 125 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1963
    Might try a back support.” McCormick v. Malecha, 266 Minn. 33, 43 , 122 N. W. (2d) 446, 453 .