Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Nihart v. Kruger, 190 N.W.2d 776.

27 citing documents.

Western National Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Nihart v. Kruger, 291 Minn. 273, 276
Russell v. Johnson 608 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Russell v. Johnson 608 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc., (holding jury verdict will be sustained on any reasonable theory based on evidence); Nihart v. Kruger, 291 Minn. 273, 276 , (holding reviewing court need only examine record to determine whether jury’s verdict is consistent on any theory).
Tsudek v. Target Stores, Inc. 414 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Gray v. Davis 414 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Tsudek v. Target Stores, Inc. 414 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(citing Nihart v. Kruger, 291 Minn. 273, 276 , ).
Gray v. Davis 414 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Only where it is clear that findings cannot be reconciled may the * * * court set them aside.” Flatin v. Lampert Lumber Co., 298 Minn. 577, 579 , (quoting Nihart v. Kruger, 291 Minn. 273, 276 , ).
Zurn v. Hunt 409 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Zurn v. Hunt 409 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Furthermore, in Nihart v. Kruger, 291 Minn. 273, 276 , the supreme court noted that it was not its function to determine on what theory the jury arrived at its verdict.
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 381 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 381 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Nihart v. Kruger, 291 Minn. 273
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 Nihart v. Kruger, 291 Minn. 273 , the Minnesota Supreme Court declared that it is not our function to determine on what theory the jury arrived at its verdict.
Insurance Co. of North America v. Federal Pacific Electric Co. 363 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Insurance Co. of North America v. Federal Pacific Electric Co. 363 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(citing Nihart v. Kruger, 291 Minn. 273, 276 , (emphasis in original)).
Olson v. Havir Manufacturing Co. of St. Paul 357 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Olson v. Havir Manufacturing Co. of St. Paul 357 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Nihart v. Kruger, 291 Minn. 273
Hauenstein v. Loctite Corp. 347 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 1984
Hauenstein v. Loctite Corp. 347 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 1984
Nihart v. Kruger, 291 Minn. 273, 276
Axelson v. Williamson 324 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1982
Axelson v. Williamson 324 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1982
See Nihart v. Kruger, 291 Minn. 273, 276
Bedor v. Ekdahl 248 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1976
Bedor v. Ekdahl 248 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1976
It is only in those cases where the evidence is so clear and conclusive as to leave no room for differences of opinion among reasonable men that the issue of causation becomes one of law to be decided by the court.” See, also, Pluwak v. Lindberg, 268 Minn. 524 , Nihart v. Kruger, 291 Minn. 273 , Lutterman v. Studer, 300 Minn. 507
Flatin v. Lampert Lumber Company 215 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1974
Flatin v. Lampert Lumber Company 215 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1974
A number of similar cases have come before this court, and in the case of Nihart v. Kruger, 291 Minn. 273, 276 , we defined the scope of our review with respect to inconsistent verdicts: “It is not our function to determine on what theory the jury arrived at its verdict.
Smith v. KAHLER CORPORATION, INC. 211 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1973
Smith v. KAHLER CORPORATION, INC. 211 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1973
In reviewing the findings, we need only examine the record to decide whether the verdicts are consistent on any theory.” Nihart v. Kruger, 291 Minn. 273, 276