DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wefel Ex Rel. Wefel v. Norman, 207 N.W.2d 340.

33 citing documents.

  • Stewart v. Koenig 767 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • Stewart v. Koenig 767 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    Wefel v. Norman, 296 Minn. 506, 507-08
  • Russell v. Johnson 608 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Russell v. Johnson 608 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    The Minnesota Supreme Court held “where a jury has answered other questions so as to determine that there is no liability on the part of the defendant, which finding is supported by credible evidence, the denial of damages or granting of inadequate damages to the plaintiff does not necessarily show prejudice or render the verdict perverse.” Wefel v. Norman, 296 Minn. 506, 508 , (quoting Sell v. Milwaukee Auto.
  • Hernandez Ex Rel. Hernandez v. Renville Public School District No. 654 542 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • Hernandez Ex Rel. Hernandez v. Renville Public School District No. 654 542 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    Wefel v. Norman, 296 Minn. 506, 508 , -16 (Minn.App.1988), review denied (Minn. Oct.
  • Plate v. St. Mary's Help of Christians Church 520 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Plate v. St. Mary's Help of Christians Church 520 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    See Wefel v. Norman, 296 Minn. 506, 508 , (where jury has determined defendant not negligent, alleged inadequate damages award not necessarily prejudicial).
  • Radloff v. Jans 428 N.W.2d 112 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Radloff v. Jans 428 N.W.2d 112 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    Wefel v. Norman, 296 Minn. 506, 507-08
  • Markowitz v. Ness 413 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Markowitz v. Ness 413 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    The applicable law regarding the inference to be drawn from an alleged inadequate jury award is found in Wefel v. Norman, 296 Minn. 506 , : The rule is that where a jury has answered other questions so as to determine that there is no liability on the part of the defendant, which finding is supported by credible evidence, the denial of damages or granting of inadequate damages to the plaintiff does not necessarily show prejudice o
  • City of Burnsville v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. 409 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • City of Burnsville v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. 409 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    13, 1985) (quoting Wefel v. Norman, 296 Minn. 506, 507 , ).
  • Tews v. Husqvarna, Inc. 390 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Tews v. Husqvarna, Inc. 390 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Wefel v. Norman, 296 Minn. 506, 508
  • Fleahman v. Lehman 388 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Fleahman v. Lehman 388 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    However, “where a jury has answered other questions so as to determine that there is no liability on the part of the defendant, which finding is supported by credible evidence, the denial of damages * * * to the plaintiff does not necessarily show prejudice or render the verdict perverse.” Wefel v. Norman, 296 Minn. 506, 508 , (quoting Sell v. Milwaukee Automobile Insurance Co., 17 Wis.2d 510, 519 , ).
  • Wagner v. Thomas J. Obert Enterprises 384 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Rud v. Flood 385 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Rud v. Flood 385 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    “The rule is that where a jury has answered other questions so as to determine that there is no liability on the part of the defendant, which finding is supported by credible evidence, the denial of damages or granting of inadequate damages to the plaintiff does not necessarily show prejudice or render the verdict perverse.” Wefel v. Norman, 296 Minn. 506, 508 , (quoting Sell v. Milwaukee Automobile Insurance Co., 17 Wis.2d 510, 519 , ).
  • Heroff v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 373 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Heroff v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 373 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    “The rule is that where a jury has answered other questions so as to determine that there is no liability on the part of the defendant, which finding is supported by credible evidence, the denial of damages or granting of inadequate damages to the plaintiff does not necessarily show prejudice or render the verdict perverse.” Wefel v. Norman, 296 Minn. 506, 508 , (quoting Sell v. Milwaukee Auto.
  • Buzzell v. Bliss 358 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Buzzell v. Bliss 358 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Wefel v. Norman, 296 Minn. 506
  • Otterness v. Horsley 263 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 1978
  • Otterness v. Horsley 263 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 1978
    This court established the rule governing the granting of new trials where the jury has found damages that are clearly inadequate in Wefel v. Norman, 296 Minn. 506
  • Duck Ex Rel. Duck v. Modern Roadways, Inc. 253 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1977
  • Duck Ex Rel. Duck v. Modern Roadways, Inc. 253 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1977
    3 In Wefel v. Norman, 296 Minn. 506, 508 , we quoted with approval the following position taken by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Sell v. Milwaukee Auto.
  • Goblirsch v. Western Land Roller Co. 246 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1976
  • Goblirsch v. Western Land Roller Co. 246 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1976
    In Wefel v. Norman, 296 Minn. 506, 508 , we *474 quoted with approval the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Sell v. Milwaukee Auto.
  • Kirby v. Frank 221 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1974
  • Kirby v. Frank 221 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1974
    In Wefel v. Norman, 296 Minn. 506, 508 , we quoted with approval Sell v. Milwaukee Auto Ins.