DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Martin v. Bussert, 193 N.W.2d 134.

28 citing documents.

  • Eliason v. Textron, Inc. 400 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Eliason v. Textron, Inc. 400 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    A jury’s apportionment of negligence is not set aside unless there is no evidence reasonably tending to sustain the apportionment or unless the apportionment is “manifestly and palpably against the weight of the evidence.” Martin v. Bussert, 292 Minn. 29, 38
  • Johnson v. Alford & Neville, Inc. 397 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Johnson v. Alford & Neville, Inc. 397 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    When a jury apportions fault in a negligence case, an appellate court “will not substitute [its] judgment for that of the jury unless there is no evidence reasonably tending to sustain the apportionment or the apportionment is manifestly and palpably against the weight of the evidence.” Martin v. Bussert, 292 Minn. 29, 38
  • Gilbert v. Billman Construction, Inc. 371 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1985
  • Gilbert v. Billman Construction, Inc. 371 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1985
    Martin v. Bussert, 292 Minn. 29
  • Rieger v. Zackoski 321 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 1982
  • Rieger v. Zackoski 321 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 1982
    Accord, Martin v. Bussert, 292 Minn. 29
  • Flom v. Flom 291 N.W.2d 914 Minn. 1980
  • Flom v. Flom 291 N.W.2d 914 Minn. 1980
    The jury’s apportionment of negligence will not be set aside “unless there is no evidence reasonably tending to sustain the apportionment or the apportionment is manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence.” Martin v. Bussert, 292 Minn. 29, 38
  • Parks v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. 289 N.W.2d 456 Minn. 1979
  • Parks v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. 289 N.W.2d 456 Minn. 1979
    Martin v. Bussert, 292 Minn. 29, 37
  • Duchene v. Wolstan 258 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 1977
  • Duchene v. Wolstan 258 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 1977
    Martin v. Bussert, 292 Minn. 29, 37
  • Martineau v. Nelson 247 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1976
  • Martineau v. Nelson 247 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1976
    17 See, Campion v. Knutson, 307 Minn. 263, 269 , Riley v. Lake, 295 Minn. 43, 58 , Martin v. Bussert, 292 Minn. 29
  • Rome v. Rome 239 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1976
  • Rome v. Rome 239 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1976
    3 Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107 , Haugen v. Dick Thayer Motor Co. 253 Minn. 199 , Daugharty v. Anderson, 275 Minn. 371 , Martin v. Bussert, 292 Minn. 29
  • Ferguson v. Northern States Power Co. 239 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 1976
  • Ferguson v. Northern States Power Co. 239 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 1976
    Riley v. Lake, 295 Minn. 43 , Martin v. Bussert, 292 Minn. 29
  • Bryant v. Larson 214 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1974
  • Bryant v. Larson 214 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1974
    See, Martin v. Bussert, 292 Minn. 29 , Riley v. Lake, 295 Minn. 43
  • Wovcha v. Mattson 209 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1973
  • Wovcha v. Mattson 209 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1973
    We are accordingly controlled by the decision of Martin v. Bussert, 292 Minn. 29 , which held that on review of apportionment of negligence between tortfeasors we will not substitute our judgment for that of the jury where there is evidence reasonably tending to sustain the findings.
  • Riley v. Lake 203 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 1972
  • Riley v. Lake 203 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 1972
    Both parties seem to have relied to some extent on Martin v. Bussert, 292 Minn. 29
  • Thurmer v. Hervin 200 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1972
  • Thurmer v. Hervin 200 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1972
    Following the guidelines set forth in Martin v. Bussert, 292 Minn. 29, 33 , there has been cited to us no basis, and a review of the evidence reveals *521 no basis, on which to disturb the apportionment fixed by the jury.