Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Primus, 203 N.W.2d 832.

41 citing documents.

Ana Thompson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Renner & Sons, d 832, 834 (Minn. 2021)); (“In a civil case, to warrant recovery on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must ‘outweigh’ other hypotheses .
Mark D. Island, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Primus , 35 (Minn. 1973)).
Minn. 2021
Independent School District No. 477, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Primus , Court Surfaces argues that even considering Rettner’s testimony, a jury would only be able to speculate that Court Surfaces was responsible for the cracking.
Scott Raden, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Raden also relies on E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Primus, 295 Minn. 240, 243, -35 (1973) (citations omitted), where the supreme court stated: [V]erdicts cannot be based upon mere speculation or conjecture.
David Charles Widmer v. Dallas Jacob Albertson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
David Charles Widmer v. Dallas Jacob Albertson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Minnesota Supreme Court “has repeatedly held that verdicts cannot be based upon mere speculation or conjecture.” E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Primus, 295 Minn. 240, 243
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2008
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2008
Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Primus, 295 Minn. 240, 243 , ), there is nothing inconsistent about a finding that Riley’s predisposition to escape arrest and his intoxication on the night of his death were both substantial factors that caused him to jump into the Minnesota River to escape the police.
Fin Ag, Inc. v. Hufnagle, Inc. 700 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Fin Ag, Inc. v. Hufnagle, Inc. 700 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Primus, 295 Minn. 240, 243
Wall v. Fairview Hospital & Healthcare Services 584 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1998
Wall v. Fairview Hospital & Healthcare Services 584 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1998
Benner & Sons v. Primus, Inc., *406 295 Minn. 240, 243
Louwagie v. Witco Chemical Corp. 378 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Louwagie v. Witco Chemical Corp. 378 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Primus, 295 Minn. 240, 243-44 , (citing Village of Plummer v. Anchor Casualty Co., 240 Minn. 355, 357 , ).
Pietila v. Congdon 362 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1985
Pietila v. Congdon 362 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1985
Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Primus, 295 Minn. 240, 243
Bethesda Lutheran Church v. Twin City Construction Co. 356 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Bethesda Lutheran Church v. Twin City Construction Co. 356 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Primus, 295 Minn. 240, 243
Dalager v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. 350 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Dalager v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. 350 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Renner & Sons v. Primus, 295 Minn. 240
National Pool Builders, Inc. v. Summit National Bank 281 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 1979
National Pool Builders, Inc. v. Summit National Bank 281 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 1979
As this court stated in E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Primus, 295 Minn. 240, 243 , : “Where the entire evidence sustains, with equal justification, two or more inconsistent inferences so that one inference does not reasonably preponderate over the others, the complainant has not sustained the burden of proof on the proposition which alone would entitle him to recover
Zinnel v. Berghuis Construction Co. 274 N.W.2d 495 Minn. 1979
Zinnel v. Berghuis Construction Co. 274 N.W.2d 495 Minn. 1979
As we expressed it in E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Primus, 295 Minn. 240, 243 , : “Where the entire evidence sustains, with equal justification, two or more inconsistent inferences so that one inference does not reasonably preponderate over the others, the complainant has not sustained the burden of proof on the proposition which alone would entitle him to recover
Cornfeldt v. Tongen 262 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 1977
Cornfeldt v. Tongen 262 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 1977
Rule 50.01, Rules of Civil Procedure; E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Primus, 295 Minn. 240
Nelson v. Wilkins Dodge, Inc. 256 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1977
Nelson v. Wilkins Dodge, Inc. 256 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1977
Rule 50.01, Rules of Civil Procedure for Municipal Courts; E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Primus, 295 Minn. 240
Republic National Life Insurance v. Marquette Bank & Trust Co. 251 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1977
Republic National Life Insurance v. Marquette Bank & Trust Co. 251 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1977
Smith v. Kahler Corp. Inc. 297 Minn. 272 , E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Primus, 295 Minn. 240 , Village of Plummer v. Anchor Cas.
General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Frito-Lay Co. 243 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 1976
General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Frito-Lay Co. 243 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 1976
*119 Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to the party against whom a verdict is directed, E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Primus, 295 Minn. 240 , Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Imp.
Evanson v. Jerowski 241 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 1976
Evanson v. Jerowski 241 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 1976
4 For the test for granting a directed verdict, see E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Primus, 295 Minn. 240 , Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Imp.
Dawley v. Thisius 231 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1975
Dawley v. Thisius 231 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1975
See, E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Primus, 295 Minn. 240 , Stenzel v. Bach, 295 Minn. 257
Smith v. KAHLER CORPORATION, INC. 211 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1973
Smith v. KAHLER CORPORATION, INC. 211 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1973
Co. 240 Minn. 355 , E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Primus, 295 Minn. 240
Bernloehr v. Central Livestock Order Buying Co. 208 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 1973
Bernloehr v. Central Livestock Order Buying Co. 208 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 1973
E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Primus, 295 Minn. 240 , Alling v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. supra.