Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Paradise v. City of Minneapolis, 297 N.W.2d 152.

39 citing documents.

In the Matter of: Daniel Frederick Schanze, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the context of a jury trial, rule 41.02(b) requires a district court to determine, “as a matter of law, [that] the evidence is sufficient to present a fact question for the jury’s consideration.”
State v. Gayles 915 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gayles 915 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Trei , , 598 (Minn. App. 2001) (quoting Paradise v. City of Minneapolis , , 155 (Minn. 1980) ), review dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001).
Christine Dittel v. Farmers Insurance Exchange Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Christine Dittel v. Farmers Insurance Exchange Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that the “two operative elements” of battery are “intent and offensive contact”); (“A battery is defined as an intentional unpermitted offensive contact with another.” (Footnote omitted.)).
Coker v. Jesson 831 N.W.2d 483 Minn. 2013
Explained Coker v. Jesson 831 N.W.2d 483 Minn. 2013
State v. Slaughter 691 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 2005
State v. Slaughter 691 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 2005
State v. Trei 624 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Trei 624 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Doyle v. Kuch 611 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Doyle v. Kuch 611 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(explaining that on review of a district court’s decision to grant a party’s motion for dismissal, all inferences must be drawn in favor of the party against whom the motion was made).
State v. Poupard 471 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Poupard 471 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In deciding whether to grant a directed verdict, the trial court must determine “whether, as a matter of law, the evidence is sufficient to present a fact question for the jury’s consideration.” Diedrich, d at 22 ().
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
Johnson v. Morris 453 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 1990
Johnson v. Morris 453 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 1990
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 448 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 448 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Kresko v. Rulli 432 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Kresko v. Rulli 432 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Diedrich 410 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Diedrich 410 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The standard for granting a directed verdict requires “the determination of whether, as a matter of law, the evidence is sufficient to present a fact question for the jury’s consideration.”
Plath v. Plath 402 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Plath v. Plath 402 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Battery is “an intentional unpermitted offensive contact with another.”
Olson v. City of Austin 386 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Olson v. City of Austin 386 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(quoting statute forbidding unnecessary restraint and statute prohibiting unreasonable force and equating both with “excessive force”).
Collins v. Johnson 374 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Collins v. Johnson 374 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Rick v. Worden 369 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Rick v. Worden 369 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Sievert v. LaMarca 367 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Sievert v. LaMarca 367 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Para *587 Hanson v. Homeland Insurance Co., 232 Minn. 403, 404
Johnson v. Peterson 358 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Johnson v. Peterson 358 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Kozak v. Weis 348 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Kozak v. Weis 348 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
however, the court reviewed & dismissal at the close of plaintiff’s case and said: The trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint under Minn.R.Civ.P.