Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Nelson v. Village of West Duluth, 57 N.W. 149.

27 citing documents.

Schiro v. Raymond 54 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1952
Schiro v. Raymond 54 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1952
3 Dennis v. Johnson, 42 Minn. 301 , ; Nelson v. Village of West Duluth, 55 Minn. 497 , .
Fewell v. Tappan 27 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1947
Fewell v. Tappan 27 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1947
Thus, in Nelson v. Village of West Duluth, 55 Minn. 497, 500 , , an action for trespass against the village for casting earth upon plaintiff’s lot in grading a public street, we said: “* * * it is not enough that the damages may, in the opinion of the court, be too large or too small; it must appear that they were given under the influence of passion or prejud
Ross v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 290 N.W. 566 Minn. 1940
Boyle v. Boileau 219 N.W. 866 Minn. 1928
Boyle v. Boileau 219 N.W. 866 Minn. 1928
Nelson v. Village of West Duluth, 55 Minn. 497 , ; Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Ott v. Tri-State Telephone & Telegraph Co. 149 N.W. 544 Minn. 1914
Ott v. Tri-State Telephone & Telegraph Co. 149 N.W. 544 Minn. 1914
Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co. 32 Minn. 217 , , ; Nelson v. Village of West Duluth, 55 Minn. 497 , ; Halness v. Anderson, 110 Minn. 204 , .
Alton v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 120 N.W. 749 Minn. 1909
Alton v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 120 N.W. 749 Minn. 1909
The case of Nelson v. Village of West Duluth, 55 Minn. 497 , , is relied upon in support of the contention.
Poirier Manufacturing Co. v. Griffin 116 N.W. 576 Minn. 1908
Poirier Manufacturing Co. v. Griffin 116 N.W. 576 Minn. 1908
Mohr v. Williams 104 N.W. 12 Minn. 1905
Mohr v. Williams 104 N.W. 12 Minn. 1905
Considerable confusion has existed with reference to the proper rule guiding this court in reviewing orders of this kind ever since the decision in Nelson v. Village of West Duluth, 55 Minn. 497 , , wherein it was said that the rule of Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 398 (434) did not apply.
Haramon v. Krause 101 N.W. 791 Minn. 1904
Haramon v. Krause 101 N.W. 791 Minn. 1904
It may there *457 fore be said the court followed Nelson v. Village of West Duluth, 55 Minn. 497 , .
Blume v. Scheer 86 N.W. 446 Minn. 1901
Blume v. Scheer 86 N.W. 446 Minn. 1901
In Nelson v. Village of West Duluth, 55 Minn. 497 , , it was held that in an action in tort the objection that the damages are excessive or inadequate, as a ground of motion for a new trial, comes under subdivision 4, and not under subdivision 5, of G-.
Gray v. Minnesota Tribune Co. 84 N.W. 113 Minn. 1900
Gray v. Minnesota Tribune Co. 84 N.W. 113 Minn. 1900
Under the circumstances, the order appealed from is governed by the well-established rule long ago laid down by this court, and which counsel asserts is not applicable to actions in tort; citing Nelson v. Village of West Duluth, 55 Minn. 497 , .
State v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co. 68 N.W. 973 Minn. 1896
State v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co. 68 N.W. 973 Minn. 1896
55 Minn. 497 , , and contends on the authority of that case that the rule of Hicks v. Stone does not apply.
Meeks v. City of St. Paul 66 N.W. 966 Minn. 1896
Meeks v. City of St. Paul 66 N.W. 966 Minn. 1896
Nelson v. Village of West Duluth, 55 Minn. 497 , .
Lane v. Dayton 57 N.W. 328 Minn. 1894
Lane v. Dayton 57 N.W. 328 Minn. 1894
The view's of the court upon this question have already been intimated in Nelson v. Village of West Duluth, 55 Minn. 497 , ( ,) in which it was held that in an action in tort the objection that the damages recovered are excessive, or inadequate and insufficient, as a ground for a motion for a new trial, comes under the fourth subdivision, not under *92 the fifth.