Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Koenig v. Ludowese, 243 N.W.2d 29.

31 citing documents.

A23-0039 A23-0041 A23-0277 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In considering a motion for a new trial, a district court is not “free to set aside a jury verdict whenever it is displeased or dissatisfied 14 with the result of the jury’s deliberations.”
Daniel J. Cafferty, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But the district court “does not have discretion to grant a new trial merely because it would have reached a conclusion different from that of the jury.” Benson v. Rostad , see als o Koenig v. Ludowese , (recognizing that the district court is not “free to set aside a jury verdict whenever it is displeased or dissatisfied with the result of the jury’s deliberations”).
Neumann v. Anderson 916 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Neumann v. Anderson 916 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Koenig v. Ludowese , 308 Minn. 380 , 383, , 30 (1976).
Richard Adams, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A district court may not “set aside a jury verdict whenever it is displeased or dissatisfied with the result of the jury’s deliberations.” Koenig v. Ludowese , 308 Minn. 380, 383
Pulkrabek v. Johnson 418 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Pulkrabek v. Johnson 418 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Cf. Koenig v. Ludowese, 308 Minn. 380, 383 , (under Minn.R.Civ.P.
RED RIVER SPRAY SERVICE, INC. v. Nelson 404 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
RED RIVER SPRAY SERVICE, INC. v. Nelson 404 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Koenig v. Ludowese, 308 Minn. 380, 383
Eliason v. Textron, Inc. 400 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Eliason v. Textron, Inc. 400 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Koenig v. Ludowese, 808 Minn. 380 , 383
Siegler v. Conner 396 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Siegler v. Conner 396 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Koenig v. Ludowese, 308 Minn. 380, 384
Imdieke v. Blenda-Life, Inc. 363 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Imdieke v. Blenda-Life, Inc. 363 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Denial of New Trial A motion for a new trial made upon the ground that the jury verdict is not supported by the evidence should be granted only in cases “where the preponderance of the evidence clearly suggests jury mistake, improper motive, bias or caprice.” citing Koenig v. Ludowese, 308 Minn. 380
Lamb v. Jordan 333 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 1983
Lamb v. Jordan 333 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 1983
Although the authority granted in Rule 59.01(7) should be exercised with caution, Koenig v. Ludowese, 308 Minn. 380, 384 , and this court will usually defer to the exercise of that authority by the trial court, which has the feel of the trial, we conclude that this case presents one of those exceptional instances requiring a re *857 tri
Conover v. Northern States Power Co. 313 N.W.2d 397 Minn. 1981
Conover v. Northern States Power Co. 313 N.W.2d 397 Minn. 1981
The standard of review, then, is that set out in Koenig v. Ludowese, 308 *408 Minn. 380
Cobb v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. 274 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 1979
Cobb v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. 274 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 1979
Koenig v. Ludowese, 308 Minn. 380 , ; Joseph v. Haggen (1977), Minn., .
Parkside Mobile Estates v. Lee 270 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1978
Parkside Mobile Estates v. Lee 270 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1978
See, Koenig v. Ludowese, 308 Minn. 380
Quast v. Prudential Property & Casualty Co. 267 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1978
Quast v. Prudential Property & Casualty Co. 267 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1978
Koenig v. Ludowese, 308 Minn. 380, 381, note 1
Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1977
Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1977
See, Koenig v. Ludowese, Minn.
Joseph v. Haggen 254 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 1977
Joseph v. Haggen 254 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 1977
1 We decided Koenig v. Ludowese, Minn., 1 week prior to the issuance of the trial court’s order in this case.
Vadnais v. American Family Mutual Insurance 243 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1976
Vadnais v. American Family Mutual Insurance 243 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1976
See, also, Koenig *104 v. Ludowese, 308 Minn. 380 , Grorud v. Thomasson, 287 Minn. 531

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by