Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Bowman v. Pamida, Inc., 261 N.W.2d 594.

35 citing documents.

In the Marriage of: Sarah Nicole Smith v. Jonathan George Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Marriage of: Sarah Nicole Smith v. Jonathan George Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Bowman v. Pamida, Inc., 597 (Minn. 1977) (treating an order for judgment as a “decision or order,” notice of which is sufficient to trigger the timeline of rule 59.03).
Bobbie Teeple v. Estate of Dylan Cox Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bobbie Teeple v. Estate of Dylan Cox Minn. Ct. App. 2015
This principle applies with full force when an appellant 5 seeks a new trial on the ground that the verdict is not justified by the evidence, Custom Farm Servs., Inc. v. Collins, 306 Minn. 571, 572, and, more specifically, when the challenged issue is the amount of damages, Bowman v. Pamida, Inc., n.3 (Minn. 1977).
Marriage of Kloncz v. Kloncz 670 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Marriage of Kloncz v. Kloncz 670 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Bowman v. Pamida, Inc., (interpreting time limitations under Minn. R. Civ.
Matter of Hellerud 497 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Matter of Hellerud 497 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Bowman v. Pamida, Inc., , 596 n. 1 (Minn.1977).
Peters v. Independent School District Number 657 477 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Peters v. Independent School District Number 657 477 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Bowman v. Pamida, Inc., Gorder v. Sims, 297 Minn. 346, 347
Runia v. Marguth Agency, Inc. 437 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1989
Runia v. Marguth Agency, Inc. 437 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1989
Respondents assert that unconditional re-mittitur is constitutional under Bowman v. Pamida, Inc., and that unconditional additur should be no different.
Ring v. McPeek 423 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Ring v. McPeek 423 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Bowman v. Pamida, Inc., Minn.R.Civ.P.
Runia v. Marguth Agency, Inc. 420 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Runia v. Marguth Agency, Inc. 420 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
More recently, the supreme court noted, albeit in dicta, “we have broadly recognized the court’s discretion to impose unconditional remit-titurs [in Krueger ].” , 596 n.,2 (Minn.1977).
Texas Commerce Bank v. Olson 416 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Texas Commerce Bank v. Olson 416 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Although the supreme court has held the notice’s 15-day time limit for service to be jurisdictional, Bowman v. Pamida, Inc., it has not held the hearing’s 30-day time limit to be jurisdictional.
Marriage of Cavegn v. Cavegn 378 N.W.2d 636 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Cavegn v. Cavegn 378 N.W.2d 636 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
814 n. 2 (Minn.1981) (citing Bowman v. Pamida, Inc., , 596 n. 1 (Minn.1977)).
Rieman v. Joubert 376 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 1985
Rieman v. Joubert 376 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 1985
The time limits imposed by Rule 59.03 “have been uniformly treated as absolute by decisions of both this court and Federal courts.” Bowman v. Pamida, Inc., (footnote omitted).
Marriage of Sudheimer v. Sudheimer 372 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Sudheimer v. Sudheimer 372 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Bowman v. Pamida, Inc., , 596 n. 1 (Minn.1977).
Marriage of Ferraro v. Ferraro 364 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Ferraro v. Ferraro 364 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Rieman v. Joubert 361 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Rieman v. Joubert 361 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
E.L.E.S.C.O. v. Northern States Power Co. 359 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
E.L.E.S.C.O. v. Northern States Power Co. 359 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Bowman v. Pamida, Inc., a defendant moved for a new trial or alternatively remittitur after the time allowed in the rules.
Hanson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad 345 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1984
Differt v. Rendahl 306 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1981
Differt v. Rendahl 306 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1981
In Re the Disbarment of Ojala 289 N.W.2d 108 Minn. 1979
In Re the Disbarment of Ojala 289 N.W.2d 108 Minn. 1979
Respondent appealed the case to this court and ultimately won in Bowman v. Pamida, Inc.