Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Conover v. Northern States Power Co., 313 N.W.2d 397.

104 citing documents.

Ruppert v. Yaeger 414 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ruppert v. Yaeger 414 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bregier v. National Family Insurance Co. 411 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bregier v. National Family Insurance Co. 411 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(jury instruction to ignore statements of law not made by the court cured any effect of admission of expert witness’s opinion of a code violation).
Gillespie v. Klun 406 N.W.2d 547 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Gillespie v. Klun 406 N.W.2d 547 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Blue Water Corp. Inc. v. O’Toole
Siegler v. Conner 396 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Siegler v. Conner 396 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
MacBeth v. Mondry 392 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
MacBeth v. Mondry 392 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322 , -03 (1967).
Potter v. American Bean & Grain Corp. 388 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Potter v. American Bean & Grain Corp. 388 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Altman v. Knox Lumber Co. 381 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Altman v. Knox Lumber Co. 381 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Borka v. Emergency Physicians Professional Ass'n 379 N.W.2d 682 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Borka v. Emergency Physicians Professional Ass'n 379 N.W.2d 682 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Haugen v. International Transport, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 1986
Haugen v. International Transport, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 1986
we defer to the trial court’s discretionary grant of the alternative new trial motion since the verdict is clearly suspect.
Larson v. Anderson, Taunton & Walsh, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 615 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Larson v. Anderson, Taunton & Walsh, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 615 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Black v. Stumvoll 374 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Black v. Stumvoll 374 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Conover v. Northern *786 States Power Co.
Hair v. Miller 374 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hair v. Miller 374 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“The trial judge, who has the feel of the trial, is in the best position to know if justice is best served by submitting the evidence to another jury.”
Thorn v. Glass Depot 373 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Thorn v. Glass Depot 373 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Peppin v. W.H. Brady Co. 372 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Peppin v. W.H. Brady Co. 372 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The standard to be applied in determining the propriety of granting a motion for JNOV is “whether there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict.”
Sievert v. LaMarca 367 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Sievert v. LaMarca 367 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“Only where the facts are undisputed and reasonable minds can draw but one conclusion from them does the question for determination become one of law for the court.”
Veld v. Steffl 363 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Veld v. Steffl 363 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Imdieke v. Blenda-Life, Inc. 363 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Imdieke v. Blenda-Life, Inc. 363 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Denial of New Trial A motion for a new trial made upon the ground that the jury verdict is not supported by the evidence should be granted only in cases “where the preponderance of the evidence clearly suggests jury mistake, improper motive, bias or caprice.” citing Koenig v. Ludowese, 308 Minn. 380
Newmaster v. Mahmood 361 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Newmaster v. Mahmood 361 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Isker v. Gardner 360 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Isker v. Gardner 360 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Cafferty v. Monson 360 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Cafferty v. Monson 360 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(appellate court should defer to presiding trial court, which is given the “broadest possible discretionary power”).
Kukowski v. Wm. Miller Scrap Iron & Metal Co. 353 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Kukowski v. Wm. Miller Scrap Iron & Metal Co. 353 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Waite v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 352 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1984
Waite v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 352 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1984
we here defer to the trial court’s discretionary grant of the alternative new trial motion since the verdict is clearly suspect.
Blue Water Corp., Inc. v. O'TOOLE 336 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 1983
Blue Water Corp., Inc. v. O'TOOLE 336 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 1983
Seidl v. Trollhaugen, Inc., 305 Minn. 506, 507
Lamb v. Jordan 333 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 1983
Lamb v. Jordan 333 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 1983
Although the authority granted in Rule 59.01(7) should be exercised with caution, Koenig v. Ludowese, 308 Minn. 380, 384 , and this court will usually defer to the exercise of that authority by the trial court, which has the feel of the trial, we conclude that this case presents one of those exceptional instances requiring a re *857 trial.
Cambern v. Sioux Tools, Inc. 323 N.W.2d 795 Minn. 1982
Cambern v. Sioux Tools, Inc. 323 N.W.2d 795 Minn. 1982
(defendant did not elect to bring in employer as a third-party defendant but employer’s fault was nevertheless submitted to jury).