Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Jack Frost, Inc. v. Engineered Building Components Co., 304 N.W.2d 346.

88 citing documents.

Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Brekke Fireplace Shoppe, Inc. 495 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Covey v. Detroit Lakes Printing Co. 490 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Covey v. Detroit Lakes Printing Co. 490 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Components Co., Gunhus, pet.
Mueller v. Sigmond 486 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Mueller v. Sigmond 486 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Schendel v. Hennepin County Medical Center 484 N.W.2d 803 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Schendel v. Hennepin County Medical Center 484 N.W.2d 803 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Components Co., (refusal to grant new trial will be reversed only where misconduct was “so prejudicial that it would be unjust to allow the result to stand”).
Block v. Target Stores, Inc. 458 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Block v. Target Stores, Inc. 458 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Short 459 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 1990
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Short 459 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 1990
Components Co., cf. McCourtie, 253 Minn. at 517-18 , d at 563 (where answer to special verdict question clearly indicates it was rendered under influence of passion and prejudice, which arose from improper comments to jury on effect its answers to special verdicts would have on ultimate right of either party
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Short 448 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Short 448 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Jack Frost, Inc. v. Engineered Building Components Co., Inc.
Ellingson v. Burlington Northern Railroad 412 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ellingson v. Burlington Northern Railroad 412 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Jack Frost, Inc. v. Engineered Building Components Co., Inc.
Gray v. French 395 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Gray v. French 395 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
We will not reverse the trial court unless it clearly abuses its *466 discretion or unless the conduct “was so prejudicial that it would be unjust to allow the result to stand.” Jack Frost, Inc. v. Engineered Building Components Co., Inc., (citing Goblirsch v. Western Land Roller Co., 310 Minn. 471, 474 , ).
Florenzano v. Olson 387 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 1986
Florenzano v. Olson 387 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 1986
See, e.g., Jack Frost, Inc. v. Engineered Building Components Co., Inc., (strict liability); (products liability); Scott v. Independent School Dist.
Spinett, Inc. v. Peoples Natural Gas Co. 385 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Spinett, Inc. v. Peoples Natural Gas Co. 385 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
We do not consider counsel’s conduct “so prejudicial that it would be unjust to allow the result to stand.” See Jack Frost
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
The “court’s decision may be reversed only upon a showing of clear abuse of discretion or if conduct was so prejudicial that it would be unjust to allow the result to stand.” Jack Frost
Hosley v. Armstrong Cork Co. 364 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hosley v. Armstrong Cork Co. 364 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The dissenters, citing Jack Frost, argue that public policy requires that contribution be limited whenever it would result in reduction of a plaintiffs recovery.
Logefeil v. Logefeil 367 N.W.2d 114 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Logefeil v. Logefeil 367 N.W.2d 114 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Jack Frost, Inc. v. Engineered Building Components Co., Inc., a defendant filed a cross-claim against a codefendant for indemnity.
Horton Ex Rel. Horton v. Orbeth, Inc. 342 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 1984
Horton Ex Rel. Horton v. Orbeth, Inc. 342 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 1984
See Jack Frost, Inc. v. Engineered Building Components Company, Inc., (where one defendant was more negligent than the plaintiff and another defendant was less negligent than the plaintiff, the more negligent defendant was liable for the entire amount of the plaintiffs damages reduced only by the proportion of causal negligence attributable to the plaintiff).
Cambern v. Sioux Tools, Inc. 323 N.W.2d 795 Minn. 1982
Hudson v. Snyder Body, Inc. 326 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 1982
Cambern v. Sioux Tools, Inc. 323 N.W.2d 795 Minn. 1982
Thus in Jack Frost v. Engineered Building Components, Inc., the jury apportioned causal negligence 30% to plaintiff Jack Frost, 15% to defendant Engineered Building Components, and 55% to defendant Hydro-Air.
Peterson v. Bendix Home Systems, Inc. 318 N.W.2d 50 Minn. 1982
Peterson v. Bendix Home Systems, Inc. 318 N.W.2d 50 Minn. 1982
Bendix argues that Jack Frost, Inc. v. Engineered Building Components Co., Inc., supports its contention.
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
Since we now hold NSP is liable to plaintiff for its own negligence, it would seem we need not reach the issue of whether NSP is also liable to plaintiff for Donovan’s negligence; although only found 75% negligent, NSP would still have to pay 100% of the verdict, since its liability is joint and several with Donovan’s. See Jack Frost, Inc. v. Engineered Building Components Company, Inc.
Maday v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis 311 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1981
Maday v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis 311 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1981