Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sandhofer v. Abbott-Northwestern Hospital, 283 N.W.2d 362.

90 citing documents.

Fehling v. Levitan 382 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Fehling v. Levitan 382 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ouellette Ex Rel. Ouellette v. Subak 379 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ouellette Ex Rel. Ouellette v. Subak 379 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
the Minnesota Supreme Court said: If it soundly appears that a more specific instruction on a particular issue is necessary to enable the jury to intelligently determine the question, the trial court should observe the party’s request.
Bowen v. Arnold 380 N.W.2d 531 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Bowen v. Arnold 380 N.W.2d 531 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Clark v. Miller 378 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Clark v. Miller 378 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Sandhofer v. Abbott- *847 Northwestern Hospital
Jacobs v. Farmland Mutual Insurance Co. 377 N.W.2d 441 Minn. 1985
Jacobs v. Farmland Mutual Insurance Co. 377 N.W.2d 441 Minn. 1985
See, (scope of review for questions of fact determined by a trial court); (scope of review for questions of fact determined by a jury).
Kalsbeck v. Westview Clinic, P.A. 375 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Kalsbeck v. Westview Clinic, P.A. 375 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hedlund v. Hedlund 371 N.W.2d 232 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hedlund v. Hedlund 371 N.W.2d 232 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
n. 2 (Minn.1979), where a hospital’s duty was held to continue, regardless of subsequent negligence by a physician.
Rick v. Worden 369 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Bushie v. City of Crookston 368 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Bushie v. City of Crookston 368 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
A jury will not be reversed unless the verdict or apportionment is “manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence.” ().
Rick v. Worden 369 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held “[ujnless the evidence is practically conclusive against the verdict, we will not set the verdict aside.” (cite omitted).
Blackburn, Nickels & Smith, Inc. v. Erickson 366 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Blackburn, Nickels & Smith, Inc. v. Erickson 366 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Unless the evidence is practically conclusive against the verdict, we will not set the verdict aside.”
Maanum v. Aust 364 N.W.2d 827 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Maanum v. Aust 364 N.W.2d 827 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Unless the evidence is practically conclusive against the verdict, [the appellate court] will not set the verdict aside.”
Fallin v. Maplewood-North St. Paul District No. 622 362 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1985
Fallin v. Maplewood-North St. Paul District No. 622 362 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1985
which holds that “a party is entitled to a specific instruction on his theory of the case if there is evidence to support the instruction and it is in accordance with applicable law.” What the appellant neglects to consider is that other language in that case states that this court prefers a general
Dubbe v. Lano Equipment, Inc. 362 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Dubbe v. Lano Equipment, Inc. 362 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
As a general rule, “a jury charge is sufficient if it fairly lays down the law of the case and conveys a clear and correct understanding of the law to the *356 jury.”
Employers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Oakes Manufacturing Co. 356 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Employers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Oakes Manufacturing Co. 356 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Hunt v. Estate of Hanson 356 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Hunt v. Estate of Hanson 356 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See also, and Hiber v. City of St.
Rettman v. City of Litchfield 354 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1984
Rettman v. City of Litchfield 354 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1984
“Unless the evidence is practically conclusive against the verdict, we will not set the verdict aside.”
Cotroneo v. Pilney 343 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1984
Cotroneo v. Pilney 343 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1984
for example, defendants delayed selection of an expert witness until the commencement of trial and announced their intent to call him on the first day of trial.
Bisher v. Homart Development Co. 328 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1983
Bisher v. Homart Development Co. 328 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1983
Rieger v. Zackoski 321 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 1982
Rieger v. Zackoski 321 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 1982
Therefore, a party challenging these results must meet a very substantial burden: this court will not reverse a jury unless the verdict or apportionment is “manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence * *
Matter of Estate of Congdon 309 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1981
Matter of Estate of Congdon 309 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1981
11 Alstores Realty, Inc. v. State, 286 Minn. 343