DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Jangula v. Klocek, 170 N.W.2d 587.

23 citing documents.

  • Twin City Underwriters, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    The purpose of remittitur is “to avoid the delay and expense of an appeal or a new trial.” (quotation omitted).
  • Goldmount Veterinary Center, P.A., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    The purpose of remittitur is “to avoid the delay and expense of an appeal or a new trial.” (quotation omitted).
  • Minn. 2021
    The objective of remittitur “ ‘is to avoid the delay and expense of an appeal or a new trial.’ ” ( (Wis.
  • Johnson v. Washington County 518 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1994
  • Johnson v. Washington County 518 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1994
    at 343 (citing Jangula v. Klocek, 284 Minn. 477, 488 , ).
  • Pulkrabek v. Johnson 418 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Pulkrabek v. Johnson 418 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    See Jangula v. Klocek, 284 Minn. 477, 488 , (plaintiff may notice review of remittitur despite his consent to it where defendant appeals from judgment).
  • McPherson v. Buege 360 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • McPherson v. Buege 360 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    59.01(5), which states that a new trial may be granted when “[e]xcessive or insufficient damages [appear] to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice ⅜ ⅜ *.” See Jangula v. Klocek, 284 Minn. 477, 488
  • Sieren v. American Family Financial Services of Wisconsin, Inc. 356 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Sieren v. American Family Financial Services of Wisconsin, Inc. 356 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    See also Jangula v. Klocek, 284 Minn. 477, 488-489
  • McGuire v. C & L RESTAURANT INC. 346 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 1984
  • McGuire v. C & L RESTAURANT INC. 346 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 1984
    See Jangula v. Klocek, 284 Minn. 477, 488
  • Bartel v. New Haven Township 323 N.W.2d 806 Minn. 1982
  • Bartel v. New Haven Township 323 N.W.2d 806 Minn. 1982
    7 Respondent township further contends that Jangula v. Klocek, 284 Minn. 477 , is supportive of its attempt to have the liability issue in this case reviewed on appeal.
  • Bebeau v. Mart 310 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 1981
  • Bebeau v. Mart 310 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 1981
    While the absence of specific findings in support of such an order has not always required an automatic reversal of the trial court’s order if we are reasonably able to assume its rationale, see, e. g., Jangula v. Klocek, 284 Minn. 477 , Dzuik v. Loehrer, 266 Minn. 153 , the absence here is critical, particularly since the record exhibits such a broad range of potential damages suffered by Bebeau.
  • Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1977
  • Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1977
    Jangula v. Klocek, 284 Minn. 477, 488 , permits review of this order despite their consents.
  • Sandt v. Hylen 224 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 1974
  • Sandt v. Hylen 224 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 1974
    We set forth the standard to be applied on evaluating a remittitur in Jangula v. Klocek, 284 Minn. 477, 488 , : “* * * The requirement of a remittitur is within the trial court’s discretion when a motion for a new trial is made pursuant to Rule 59.01(5), Rules of Civil Procedure.
  • Patterson v. Donahue 190 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1971
  • Patterson v. Donahue 190 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1971
    2 See, Jangula v. Klocek, 284 Minn. 477, 483