Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Bisbee v. Ruppert, 235 N.W.2d 364.

66 citing documents.

Minnesota Attorney General’s Office v. Schierholz and Associates, Inc., d/b/a Broadmoor Valley, Paul Milton Schierholz Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The supreme court has “held that prejudicial remarks in closing argument can be corrected by a curative instruction except in the case of the most extreme misconduct.”
Hope Larsen v. Erin Lee Mullen and d/b/a Running LL’s Ranch Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Hope Larsen v. Erin Lee Mullen and d/b/a Running LL’s Ranch Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“A [district] court is granted the broadest possible discretion in determining whether a new trial should be granted for excessive damages.” ().
Anthony Kelley v. The Bernick’s Company, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(stating that inviting “the jury to ask themselves what damages they would wish if they had suffered plaintiff’s injuries” is impermissible); see also 75 Am.
Mark Kedrowski, Minn. 2019
Bisbee v. Ruppert , d 364, 368 (Minn. 1975); (“[W]here excluded evidence is merely repetitious of other evidence admitted at trial, no prejudicial error results.”).
Carney Lien v. Casper Construction, Inc., et al., Veit & Company, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(concluding that asking jurors to consider what damages they wo uld seek in plaintiff’s position improper).
Bobbie Teeple, et al v. Estate of Dylan Cox, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bobbie Teeple, et al v. Estate of Dylan Cox, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Bisbee v. Ruppert, 306 Minn. 39, 48
Willis v. Indiana Harbor Steamship Co. 790 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Willis v. Indiana Harbor Steamship Co. 790 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
A district court possesses “the broadest possible discretion in determining whether a new trial should be granted for excessive damages.” Bisbee v. Ruppert, 306 Minn. 39, 48-49
JEM ACRES, LLC v. Bruno 764 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
JEM ACRES, LLC v. Bruno 764 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See Bisbee v. Ruppert, 306 Minn. 39, 48 , 235 *-71 (1975) (stating that when improper remarks are made in closing arguments, a reviewing court generally will not require a new trial in the absence of an objection or a request for curative instructions).
Heine v. Simon 674 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Heine v. Simon 674 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Bisbee v. Ruppert, 306 Minn. 39, 49
Myers v. Hearth Technologies, Inc. 621 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Myers v. Hearth Technologies, Inc. 621 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
A trial court possesses “the broadest possible discretion in determining whether a new trial should be granted for excessive damages.” Bisbee v. Ruppert, 306 Minn. 39, 48-49
Poston v. Colestock 540 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Poston v. Colestock 540 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
E.g., Bisbee v. Ruppert, 306 Minn. 39, 47
Hahn v. Tri-Line Farmers Co-Op 478 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Hahn v. Tri-Line Farmers Co-Op 478 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See Bisbee v. Ruppert, 306 Minn. 39, 48
Jewett v. Deutsch 437 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Jewett v. Deutsch 437 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Bisbee v. Ruppert, 306 Minn. 39, 47
City of Springfield v. Anderson 411 N.W.2d 292 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Molkenbur v. Hart 411 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Molkenbur v. Hart 411 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
City of Springfield v. Anderson 411 N.W.2d 292 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bisbee v. Ruppert, 306 Minn. 39, 44
Mervin v. Magney Construction Co. 399 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Mervin v. Magney Construction Co. 399 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bisbee v. Ruppert, 306 Minn. 39, 48-49
Peterson v. Burlington Northern Railroad 399 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Peterson v. Burlington Northern Railroad 399 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bisbee v. Ruppert, 306 Minn. 39, 47-48
Anderson v. Rumsey 398 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Anderson v. Rumsey 398 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bisbee v. Ruppert, 306 Minn. 39, 47, 48-49 , 371 (1975).
Buttz v. Bergeson 392 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Buttz v. Bergeson 392 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp., 312 Minn. 114, 119 , Bisbee v. Ruppert, 306 Minn. 39, 48-49
Feil v. Commissioner of Public Safety 383 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Feil v. Commissioner of Public Safety 383 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Bisbee v. Ruppert, 306 Minn. 39, 44
Gum v. Medcalf Orthopaedic Appliance Co. 380 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Gum v. Medcalf Orthopaedic Appliance Co. 380 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Bisbee v. Ruppert, 306 Minn. 39, 47
Dailey v. Wiborg 366 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Dailey v. Wiborg 366 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Bisbee v. Ruppert, 306 Minn. 39, 47
Heitkamp v. State 363 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Heitkamp v. State 363 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Bisbee v. Ruppert, 306 Minn. 39 , Minn.R.Evid.
Glick v. Commissioner of Public Safety 362 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Glick v. Commissioner of Public Safety 362 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Bisbee v. Ruppert, 306 Minn. 39, 43
Quill v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. 361 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Quill v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. 361 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Bisbee v. Ruppert, 306 Minn. 39, 47
Tate v. Commissioner of Public Safety 356 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Tate v. Commissioner of Public Safety 356 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Bisbee v. Ruppert, 306 Minn. 39, 44
Cardinal Consulting Co. v. Circo Resorts, Inc. 297 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1980
Cardinal Consulting Co. v. Circo Resorts, Inc. 297 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1980
Bisbee v. Ruppert, 306 Minn. 39