Cited by

In doing so, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, making an “independent determination of whether there is sufficient 6 evidence to present an issue of fact for the jury.” Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.

We must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and make “an independent determination of whether there is sufficient evidence to present an issue of fact for the jury.” Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.

Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.

Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.

See Vermillion State Bank v. Tennis Sanitation, LLC, Jerry ’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.

n.5 (Minn. 2018); Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., 1 We conclude under this standard that the district court did not err by denying Pineur’s JMOL motion.

See Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.

e: “(1) the 8 existence of an attorney -client relationship; (2) acts constituting negligence or breach of contract; (3) that such acts were the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages; [and] (4) that but for defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff would have been successful in t he prosecution or defense of the action.” Jerry’s Enterprises, Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., (quotation omitted).

Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.

Reviewing courts make “an independent 6 determination of whether there [was] sufficient evidence to present an issue of fact for the jury.” Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.

In doing so, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and independently determine “whether there is sufficient evidence to present an issue of fact for the jury.” Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.

When a case —like this one —involves a transactional matter, the fourth element is “modified to require a plaintiff to sho w that, but for defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable result in the underlying transaction than the result obtained.” Jerry’s Enter s., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.

In contrast, “reasonableness” is the touchstone for the standard of care, under which “[a]ttorneys have a duty ‘to exercise that degree of care and skill that is reasonable under the circumstances, considering the nature of the undertaking.’ ” Jerry’s Enterprises, Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., (quoting Prawer .v Essling, ).

our elements: “(1) the existence of an attorney-client rela tionship; (2) acts cons tituting negligence or breach of contract; (3) that such acts were the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages; and (4) that but for defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the action.” Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. , (quotation omitted).

P. 61 (providing that harmless error in the admission or exclusion of evidence is not a basis for granting a new trial); see also Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., (stating that appellant must demonstrate prejudice resulting from district court’s evidentiary ruling to obtain relief), aff’d as modified

v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.

v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.

quotation omitted); see also , Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp. , (noting that when reviewing decisions to grant or deny motions for judgment as a matter of law, appellate courts apply the same standard as the district court, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party); Jerry’s Enters, Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. , (holding that j udgment as a matter of law should only be granted in those cases when the jury’s verdict is manifestly against the evidence

Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.

Appellate courts view “the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party” and make “an independent determination of whether there is sufficient evidence to present an issue of fact for the jury.” See Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.

In the context of legal malpractice cases, we have held that a client may maintain a malpractice action against an attorney for transactional work if the client can show that “but for [attorney]’s conduc t, the [client] would have obtained a more favorable result in the underlying transaction than the result obtained.” Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, D-4 Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.

“Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, this court makes an independent determination of whether there is sufficient evidence to presen t an issue of fact for the jury.” Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin , Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.

Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., (quotation omitted).

Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. 13 Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.

A district court should grant JMOL only in “unequivocal cases” where the verdict is “manifestly against the entire evidence” or is “contrary to the law applicable to the case.” Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd ., 2 We also decline to consider any citations in Davis’s post -oral argument submissions to documents not admitted into evidence at trial.

See Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lind gren, Ltd., (“Attorneys have a duty to exercise that degree of care and skill that is reasonable under the circumstances, considering the nature of the undertaking.” (quotation omitted)).

Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.

A district court should only grant JMOL in “unequivocal cases” where the verdict is “manifestly against the entire evidence” or is “contrary to the law applicable to the case.” Jerry’s Enter s., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren , Ltd., (quotation omitted); see also Moorhead Econ.

*566 Jerry's Enters., Inc., v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. , , 816 (Minn. 2006) (quotation omitted); Diesen v. Hessburg , , 452 (Minn. 1990) (stating that district court should not grant JMOL unless the evidence is practically conclusive against the verdict and reasonable minds can reach only one conclusion or when the jury's findings are contrary to the law appl

Jerry’s Enterprises, Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.

Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. , (quotation omitted); d 17 541, 549 (Minn. App. 2011), aff’d

6 Jerry’s Enters., Inc., v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. , (quotation omitted).

Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.

“Expert testimony is generally required to establish the standard of care applicable to an attorney whose conduct is alleged to have been negligent, and further to establish whether the conduct deviated from that standard.” Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., (quotation omitted).

See Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.

The alleged injury must be “damage to or loss of a cause of action belonging to the plaintiff.” Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.

Judgment as a matter of law should be granted only in “unequivocal cases where (1) in the light of the evidence as a whole, it would clearly be the duty of the [district] court to set aside a contrary verdict as being manifestly against the entire evidence, or where (2) it would be contrary to the law applicable to the case.” Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., (quotation omitted).

“Expert testimony is generally required to establish the standard of care applicable to an attorney whose conduct is alleged to have been negligent, and further to establish whether the conduct deviated from that standard.” Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., (quotation omitted).

Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., (quotation omitted).

Jerry’s Enters., Inc., v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., Appellate courts “apply de novo review to the district court’s denial of a [r]ule 50 motion.” aff’d

“Expert testimony is generally required to establish the standard of care applicable to an attorney whose conduct is alleged to have been negligent and further to establish whether the conduct deviated from that standard.” Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., (quotation omitted).