Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Vanderweyst v. Langford, 228 N.W.2d 271.

44 citing documents.

Jesus Cardenas, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
On appeal, a jury’s decision “will stand unless manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.” (affirming the denial of a new-trial motion).
Renswick v. Wenzel 819 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Renswick v. Wenzel 819 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Vanderweyst v. Langford, 303 Minn. 575, 576
Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A. 520 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1994
Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A. 520 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1994
at 115 (citing Vanderweyst v. Langford, 303 Minn. 575, 576 , ).
Gustafson v. Chestnut 515 N.W.2d 114 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Gustafson v. Chestnut 515 N.W.2d 114 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Causation is usually a fact issue for the jury, Vanderweyst v. Langford, 303 Minn. 575, 576 , but may be decided as a matter of law when reasonable minds can arrive at only one conclusion.
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett 490 N.W.2d 108 Minn. 1992
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett 490 N.W.2d 108 Minn. 1992
Vanderweyst v. Langford, 303 Minn. 575, 576
Pletan v. Gaines 481 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Pletan v. Gaines 481 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(citing Vanderweyst v. Langford, 303 Minn. 575, 576 , ).
Weber ex rel. Otten v. Gates 477 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Weber ex rel. Otten v. Gates 477 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Van derweyst v. Langford, 303 Minn. 575, 576
Fiedler v. Adams 466 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Fiedler v. Adams 466 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Vanderweyst v. Langford, 303 Minn. 575, 576
Benson v. NORTHERN GOPHER ENTERPRISES 446 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Benson v. NORTHERN GOPHER ENTERPRISES 446 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Alternatively stated, the evidence is sufficient unless the verdict it would produce is "manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence,” (quoting Vanderweyst v. Langford, 303 Minn. 575, 576 , ); or one reasonable minds could not reach, or is contradicted by evidence "practically conclusive against the verdict.” Bischer at 733 (quoting Seidl v. Trollhaugen, Inc., 305 Minn. 506, 507 , ).
Roemer v. Martin 440 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 1989
Roemer v. Martin 440 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 1989
3 A jury verdict will not be set aside unless it is “manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.” Vanderweyst v. Langford, 303 Minn. 575, 576 , (jury finding on causation not to be disturbed).
Raske v. Gavin 438 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Raske v. Gavin 438 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Vanderweyst v. Langford, 303 Minn. 575, 576
Reese Design, Inc. v. I-94 Highway 61 Eastview Center Partnership 428 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Reese Design, Inc. v. I-94 Highway 61 Eastview Center Partnership 428 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Vanderweyst v. Langford, 303 Minn. 575 , Minn.R.Civ.P.
Lennon v. Pieper 411 N.W.2d 225 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lennon v. Pieper 411 N.W.2d 225 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Vanderweyst v. Langford, 303 Minn. 575, 576
Jonathan v. Kvaal 403 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Morris v. Littler 399 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Morris v. Littler 399 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Vanderweyst v. Langford, 303 Minn. 575, 576
Savage v. K-Mart Corp. 393 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Savage v. K-Mart Corp. 393 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Vanderweyst v. Langford, 303 Minn. 575
Roettger v. United Hospitals of St. Paul, Inc. 380 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Roettger v. United Hospitals of St. Paul, Inc. 380 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Vanderweyst v. Langford, *861 303 Minn. 575 , the supreme court outlined the standard to be applied when the jury has issued a special verdict on causation: The question of proximate cause is normally for the jury to decide, and its decision will stand unless manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the li
Stewart v. Frisch 381 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Stewart v. Frisch 381 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Vanderweyst v. Langford, 303 Minn. 575, 576
Black v. Stumvoll 374 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Black v. Stumvoll 374 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Therefore, a jury’s finding on proximate cause will not be set aside unless it is “manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.” Vanderweyst v. Langford, 303 Minn. 575, 576
Thorn v. Glass Depot 373 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Thorn v. Glass Depot 373 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The court further stated in Vanderweyst v. Langford, 303 Minn. 575 , : “The question of proximate cause is normally for the jury to decide, and its decision will stand unless manifestly and pal *804 pably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.” Id.
Ponticas v. K.M.S. Investments 331 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1983
Ponticas v. K.M.S. Investments 331 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1983
Vanderweyst v. Langford, 303 Minn. 575, 576 , (per curiam).
Lyons v. SCNEI, INC.(ZAYRE SHOPPER'S CITY) 262 N.W.2d 169 Minn. 1978
Lyons v. SCNEI, INC.(ZAYRE SHOPPER'S CITY) 262 N.W.2d 169 Minn. 1978
See, Vanderweyst v. Langford, 303 Minn. 575
Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. 258 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1977
Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. 258 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1977
Vanderweyst v. Langford, 303 Minn. 575