Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Krueger v. Knutson, 111 N.W.2d 526.

70 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment Minn. 2021
See Krueger v. Knutson , (explaining that the opinions of medical experts on a contested issue “are not conclusive unless so positive as to exclude all doubt as to the matter on which they are given and unless based on testimony which is positive, consistent, unimpeached, and uncontradicted”).
Erin Shegrud v. Garner Berry Eeg, Christa Blumer, State Farm Insurance Company, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Erin Shegrud v. Garner Berry Eeg, Christa Blumer, State Farm Insurance Company, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In sum, the verdict is not inadequate in light of the evidence such “that we are convinced that it could only have been rendered on account of passion or prejudice.” Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 154
Rush v. Jostock 710 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Rush v. Jostock 710 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 158
Van Guilder v. National Freight, Inc. 686 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Van Guilder v. National Freight, Inc. 686 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 159
Raze v. Mueller 587 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1999
Raze v. Mueller 587 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1999
See Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 159 , (determining that the trial court is in the best position to determine the adequacy of a verdict).
Barrera v. Muir 553 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Barrera v. Muir 553 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Rud, d at 360 (quoting Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 159 , ).
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
*174 (quoting Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 154 , ).
Hunt v. Regents of University 446 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Hunt v. Regents of University 446 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Id.; see also Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 159 , (credibility of medical experts and weight given to their testimony is for the jury).
Runia v. Marguth Agency, Inc. 437 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1989
Runia v. Marguth Agency, Inc. 437 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1989
Bowman cited Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 156 , as authority for the statement that a trial judge has a wide range of discretion and may within reason unconditionally impose additurs or remittiturs or a new trial.
Runia v. Marguth Agency, Inc. 420 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Runia v. Marguth Agency, Inc. 420 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In Minnesota, the trial judge “possesses a wide range of discretion * * * after the verdict has been rendered and he may within reason unconditionally impose additurs or remittiturs or he may in the interests of justice impose a new trial.” Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 158
Pulkrabek v. Johnson 418 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Pulkrabek v. Johnson 418 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 154
Flanagan v. Lindberg 404 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 1987
Flanagan v. Lindberg 404 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 1987
The test to be applied by an appellate court is whether the jury award of damages is “so inadequate or excessive that * * * it could only have been rendered on account of passion or prejudice.” (citing Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 154 , ).
Rands v. Forest Lake Lumber Mart, Inc. 402 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Rands v. Forest Lake Lumber Mart, Inc. 402 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 158
Otto v. Hennen 395 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Otto v. Hennen 395 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144
Northway v. Madsen 390 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Northway v. Madsen 390 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 154
Hennen v. Huff 388 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hennen v. Huff 388 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 158
Rud v. Flood 385 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Rud v. Flood 385 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144 , the plaintiff similarly argued that testimony by the only medical expert regarding the injuries sustained was conclusive on the jury because the defense offered no opposing medical testimony.
Pomije v. Scheiber 371 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Pomije v. Scheiber 371 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 158
State v. Langley 354 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1984
State v. Langley 354 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1984
Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 159
Nemanic v. Gopher Heating & Sheet Metal, Inc. 337 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1983
Nemanic v. Gopher Heating & Sheet Metal, Inc. 337 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1983
Stahlberg v. Moe, 283 Minn. 78, 85 , Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 158-59
Conover v. Northern States Power Co. 313 N.W.2d 397 Minn. 1981
Seim Ex Rel. Seim v. Garavalia 306 N.W.2d 806 Minn. 1981
Seim Ex Rel. Seim v. Garavalia 306 N.W.2d 806 Minn. 1981
The general rule is that a new trial on damages will be ordered “only where a verdict is so inadequate or excessive that * * * it could only have been rendered on account of passion or prejudice.” Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 154
Bowman v. Pamida, Inc. 261 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1977
Bowman v. Pamida, Inc. 261 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1977
While a conditional remittitur would ordinarily be preferred, we have broadly recognized the court’s discretion to impose unconditional remittiturs in Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 158 , where it is stated: “ * * * The trial judge, however, possesses a wide range of discretion in such matters'after the verdict has been rendered and he may within reason unconditionally impose additurs or remittiturs or he may in the interests of justice impose a new trial.
Davis v. Liesenfeld 240 N.W.2d 548 Minn. 1976
Davis v. Liesenfeld 240 N.W.2d 548 Minn. 1976
Kruger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 154
Tuominen v. Waldholm 221 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1974
Tuominen v. Waldholm 221 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1974
Backman v. Fitch, 272 Minn. 143, 154 , Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 154
Kinning v. Sutton 220 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 1974
Kinning v. Sutton 220 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 1974
Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144 , Brannan v. Shertzer, 242 Minn. 277