Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Reese v. Henke, 152 N.W.2d 63.

86 citing documents.

Liberte Construction, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
As the district court noted, “[t]he test is whether the answers can be reconciled in any reasonable manner consistent with the evidence and its fair inferences.” (“If the answers to special verdict questions can be reconciled on any theory, the verdict will not be disturbed.”).
Ammie Murphy, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 845 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2014
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 845 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2014
Rather, the jury’s findings are to be “liberally construed to give effect to the intention of the jury.” Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151, 155
Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
“The test is whether the answers can be reconciled in any reasonable manner consistent with the evidence and its fair inferences.” Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151, 155
Dunn v. National Beverage Corp. 745 N.W.2d 549 Minn. 2008
Dunn v. National Beverage Corp. 745 N.W.2d 549 Minn. 2008
The test is whether the special verdict answers “can be reconciled in any reasonable manner consistent with the evidence and its fair inferences.” Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151, 155
Olson v. Alexandria Independent School District 206 680 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Olson v. Alexandria Independent School District 206 680 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151, 155
Navarre v. South Washington County Schools 652 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2002
Navarre v. South Washington County Schools 652 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2002
(quoting Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151, 155 , ).
Navarre v. South Washington County Schools 633 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Navarre v. South Washington County Schools 633 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(quoting Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151, 155 , ).
Kelly v. City of Minneapolis 598 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1999
Kelly v. City of Minneapolis 598 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1999
Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151, 155
Raze v. Mueller 587 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1999
Raze v. Mueller 587 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1999
Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151, 155
Weber ex rel. Otten v. Gates 477 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Weber ex rel. Otten v. Gates 477 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151, 155 , (citations omitted).
Carnahan v. Walsh 416 N.W.2d 187 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Carnahan v. Walsh 416 N.W.2d 187 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151, 155
Johnson v. Hed 410 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Johnson v. Hed 410 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
at 510 , d at 759 (quoting Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151, 155 , ).
Zurn v. Hunt 409 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Zurn v. Hunt 409 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151 , the supreme court set forth the rule for reconciling answers to interrogatories in special verdicts.
Savage v. K-Mart Corp. 393 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Buttz v. Bergeson 392 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Savage v. K-Mart Corp. 393 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151, 156
Buttz v. Bergeson 392 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151, 155
Potter v. American Bean & Grain Corp. 388 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Potter v. American Bean & Grain Corp. 388 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(citing Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151, 155
Clark v. Miller 378 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Clark v. Miller 378 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(quoting Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151, 155 , ).
Strauss v. Waseca Village Bowl 378 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Strauss v. Waseca Village Bowl 378 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(citing Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151, 155 , ); Automated Systems
Black v. Stumvoll 374 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Black v. Stumvoll 374 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Appellant contends the outcome to this case is determined by Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151
Thorn v. Glass Depot 373 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Thorn v. Glass Depot 373 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151 , and Risacher v. Lien, 279 Minn. 58
Betz Ex Rel. Betz v. Nelson 367 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Betz Ex Rel. Betz v. Nelson 367 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151 , the supreme court stated that a “determination that as between the two [negligent parties] the negligence of [one] was the more reprehensible * * * cannot be the basis for exonerating one tortfeasor and holding the other liable.” Id.
Verhel Ex Rel. Verhel v. Independent School District No. 709 359 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 1984
Verhel Ex Rel. Verhel v. Independent School District No. 709 359 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 1984
citing Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151, 155
Sabasko v. Fletcher 359 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Sabasko v. Fletcher 359 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151, 155
Coughlin v. LaBounty 354 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Coughlin v. LaBounty 354 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151
Nelson v. Henning 354 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Nelson v. Henning 354 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In reviewing a special jury verdict: “The test is whether the answers can be reconciled in any reasonable manner consistent with the evidence and its fair preponderance.” Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151, 155 , 152 *