Cited by

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

23 citing documents.

Twin City Underwriters, Inc. v. Heppner Insurance Agency, LLC, et al 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. v. Watonwan County, Animal Humane Society 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