Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., 297 N.W.2d 252.

283 citing documents.

Blackburn, Nickels & Smith, Inc. v. Erickson 366 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hudson v. Snyder Body, Inc., (citing Steumpges v. Parke, Davis & Co., ).
Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States 361 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States 361 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Insurance Co. of North America v. Federal Pacific Electric Co. 363 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Insurance Co. of North America v. Federal Pacific Electric Co. 363 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See, e.g., Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Potthoff v. Jefferson Lines, Inc. 363 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Potthoff v. Jefferson Lines, Inc. 363 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See, e.g., Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Fudally v. Ching Johnson Builders, Inc. 360 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Fudally v. Ching Johnson Builders, Inc. 360 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
DISCUSSION The appellate court’s role in reviewing jury verdicts in Minnesota is limited by the following standard: All testimony must be considered in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, * * * and a verdict will only be disturbed if it is “manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence.” Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., (citations omitted).
Paripovich v. Hayden-Murphy Equipment Co. 358 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Olson v. Havir Manufacturing Co. of St. Paul 357 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Olson v. Havir Manufacturing Co. of St. Paul 357 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis and Company
Paripovich v. Hayden-Murphy Equipment Co. 358 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Hunt v. Estate of Hanson 356 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Lawin v. City of Long Prairie 355 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Bethesda Lutheran Church v. Twin City Construction Co. 356 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Benson v. Webb 356 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Lawin v. City of Long Prairie 355 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The verdict must stand unless “it is manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence.” Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Hunt v. Estate of Hanson 356 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Benson v. Webb 356 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Bethesda Lutheran Church v. Twin City Construction Co. 356 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Marriage of Chambard v. Chambard 348 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Chambard v. Chambard 348 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Melina v. Chaplin 327 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1982
Melina v. Chaplin 327 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1982
Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, as we must, Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., we cannot conclude the jury’s verdict was manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence.
Utecht v. Shopko Department Store 324 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1982
Utecht v. Shopko Department Store 324 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1982
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Hudson v. Snyder Body, Inc. 326 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 1982
Hudson v. Snyder Body, Inc. 326 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 1982
Steumpges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Johnson v. Farmers & Merchants State Bank of Balaton 320 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1982
Johnson v. Farmers & Merchants State Bank of Balaton 320 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1982
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., Bla sing v. P.R.L.
Johnson v. Dirkswager 315 N.W.2d 215 Minn. 1982
Johnson v. Dirkswager 315 N.W.2d 215 Minn. 1982
“[T]rue statements, however disparaging, are not actionable.” Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.