Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Orwick v. Belshan, 231 N.W.2d 90.

37 citing documents.

Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc., … Minn. 2026
Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc., … Minn. 2026
–98 (Minn. 1975), a case in which we primarily addressed whether the plaintiff demonstrated the defendant’s negligence proximately caused his injuries.
Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Defining a term by explaining what it is not becomes “unnecessarily abstruse and confusing.” -98 (Minn. 1975) (addressing a jury instruction that defined proximate cause by explaining what it is not).
Daniel R. Pakonen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Findings by special verdict are generally binding on district courts.3
Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
Orwick v. Belshan, 304 Minn. 338, 343 , see Reese, 277 Minn. at 156 , d at 67 (holding that, although normally causation is a fact issue for the jury, when a jury has found negligence, the court may hold, as a matter of law, that the negligence was a cause of the injury when the court believes that reasonable minds
Dunn v. National Beverage Corp. 745 N.W.2d 549 Minn. 2008
Dunn v. National Beverage Corp. 745 N.W.2d 549 Minn. 2008
E.g., Orwick v. Belshan, 304 Minn. 338, 350 , Reese , 277 Minn, at 156, d at 67 .
Olson v. Alexandria Independent School District 206 680 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Olson v. Alexandria Independent School District 206 680 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
A trial court has “the same authority to set aside and change an answer to a question in a special verdict as it has to grant judgment notwithstanding the verdict, that is, where the evidence requires the change as a matter of law.” Orwick v. Belshan, 304 Minn. 338, 343
Wenzel v. Mathies 542 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Wenzel v. Mathies 542 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Orwick v. Belshan, 304 Minn. 338, 343 , (court may partially direct a verdict to reconcile jury’s special verdict answers).
Stearns v. Plucinski 482 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Stearns v. Plucinski 482 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Appellant cites Orwick v. Belshan, 304 Minn. 338 , and Kuether v. Locke, 261 Minn. 41 , in support of her argument that JIG 99 must not be given with the res ipsa loquitur instruction.
Bogut v. Jannetta 410 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bogut v. Jannetta 410 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See, e.g., Orwick v. Belshan, 304 Minn. 338, 343-44 , -95 (1975).
Olson v. City of Austin 386 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Olson v. City of Austin 386 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Orwick v. Belshan, 304 Minn. 338, 344 , -95 (1975).
Black v. Stumvoll 374 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Black v. Stumvoll 374 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Orwick v. Belshan, 304 Minn. 338, 350
Noble v. C.E.D.O., Inc. 374 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Noble v. C.E.D.O., Inc. 374 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Orwick v. Belshan, 304 Minn. 338, 343 , (citations omitted).
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
Orwick v. Belshan, 304 Minn. 338, 348
Sabasko v. Fletcher 359 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Sabasko v. Fletcher 359 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Orwick v. Belshan, 304 Minn. 338, 343
Carufel v. Steven 293 N.W.2d 47 Minn. 1980
Carufel v. Steven 293 N.W.2d 47 Minn. 1980
*49 However, the evidence is not sufficient to indicate that the answer to either question should be changed as a matter of law by this court, as was done in Reese v. Henke and Orwick v. Belshan, 304 Minn. 338
Walsh v. Pagra Air Taxi, Inc. 282 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1979
Walsh v. Pagra Air Taxi, Inc. 282 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1979
Meinke v. Lewandowski, 306 Minn. 406, 412 , Orwick v. Belshan, 304 Minn. 338
Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc. 258 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 1977
Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc. 258 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 1977
See, Evanson v. Jerowski, Minn., Orwick v. Belshan, 304 Minn. 338
Evanson v. Jerowski 241 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 1976
Evanson v. Jerowski 241 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 1976
2 A trial court has the same authority to set aside and change an answer to a question in a special verdict when not supported by the evidence as it has to grant judgment notwithstanding a general verdict, Orwick v. Belshan, 304 Minn. 338 , Majerus v. Guelsow, 262 Minn. 1
Meinke v. Lewandowski 237 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 1975
Meinke v. Lewandowski 237 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 1975
First, we repeat and reemphasize our recommendation in Orwick v. Belshan, 304 Minn. 338, 345 , : “Either as a preface to the comparative negligence question in the special verdict or in the court’s instructions, and preferably in both, the jury should be told the previous answers or findings which make necessary an answer to the comparative negligence question.” (Italics supplie