Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., 711 N.W.2d 811.

108 citing documents.

Valley Paving, Inc. v. Stanley Consultants, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., 819 (Minn. 2006).
Patrick Exner v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., (quoting J.N.
Roxanne J. Soderholm v. Olivia Forar Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Roxanne J. Soderholm v. Olivia Forar Minn. Ct. App. 2016
JMOL is appropriately granted only in unambiguous 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., (quoting J.N.
Mark Lanterman v. Michael Roman Afremov Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mark Lanterman v. Michael Roman Afremov Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jerry’s Enters., Inc., v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., (quotation omitted).
James M. Johnson v. Princeton Public Utilities Commission, and third party v. Hydrocon, Inc., Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James M. Johnson v. Princeton Public Utilities Commission, and third party v. Hydrocon, Inc., Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., (quotation omitted).
James F. Christie v. Estate of Dilman Christie, Charles Christie Minn. Ct. App. 2015
James F. Christie v. Estate of Dilman Christie, Charles Christie Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, [appellate courts] 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.
R. Wynn Kearney, Jr., M.D. v. The Orthopaedic and Fracture Clinic, P.A. v. Steven B. Curtis, intervening and … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
R. Wynn Kearney, Jr., M.D. v. The Orthopaedic and Fracture Clinic, P.A. v. Steven B. Curtis, intervening and … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
matter of law JMOL is appropriate “only in those 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); see also Minn. R. Civ.
Guzick v. Kimball 869 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2015
Guzick v. Kimball 869 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2015
Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A. v. Gene Rechtzigel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A. v. Gene Rechtzigel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., (quotation omitted).
Ryan Contracting Company v. O'Neill & Murphy, LLP 868 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ryan Contracting Company v. O'Neill & Murphy, LLP 868 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To survive summary judgment in a legal-malpractice case, a plaintiff must show 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 & 6 Lindgren, Ltd., (quotation omitted).
David Charles Widmer v. Dallas Jacob Albertson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
David Charles Widmer v. Dallas Jacob Albertson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
nly in an “unequivocal case” where “(1) in the light of the evidence as a whole, it would clearly be the duty of the trial court to set aside a contrary verdict as being manifestly against the entire evidence, or where (2) it would be 4 contrary to the law applicable to the case.” Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.
Kenneth A. Roseland v. Joseph A. Wentzell, Attorney at Law, Richard L. Kusick, and Roseland Acres, LLC, third … 864 N.W.2d 356 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kenneth A. Roseland v. Joseph A. Wentzell, Attorney at Law, Richard L. Kusick, and Roseland Acres, LLC, third … 864 N.W.2d 356 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
ntiff must prove: “(1) the 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 the prosecution or defense of the action.” Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., (quotation omitted).
Susanna D. Smith v. Wells Concrete Products Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Susanna D. Smith v. Wells Concrete Products Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
However, judgment as a matter of law should be granted in those cases where the verdict is “manifestly against the entire evidence” or where “it would be contrary to the law applicable to the case.” Jerry’s Enters., Inc., v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., (quotation omitted).
Carroll A. Britton v. Harry Hohman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Carroll A. Britton v. Harry Hohman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
al malpractice are “(1) the 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 damage; 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).
Timothy Guzick, as Personal Representative of the Estate of George J. Nyberg and as Trustee of the George … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Timothy Guzick, as Personal Representative of the Estate of George J. Nyberg and as Trustee of the George … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
ng four elements: “(1) the 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 the prosecution or defense of the action.” Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., 819 (Minn. 2006).
Samuel Deweese, (A13-2152), (A13-2160) v. Lakeview Clinic, Ltd., (A13-2152), (A13-2160). Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Samuel Deweese, (A13-2152), (A13-2160) v. Lakeview Clinic, Ltd., (A13-2152), (A13-2160). Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A district court should only grant JMOL in cases “where (1) in the light of the evidence as a whole, it would clearly be the duty of the trial 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).
Lee D. Weiss, Weiss Capital Real Estate Group, LLC v. Private Capital, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Lee D. Weiss, Weiss Capital Real Estate Group, LLC v. Private Capital, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jerry’s Enters., Inc., v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., (quoting J.N.
McGrann Shea Carnival Straughn & Lamb, Chartered v. Clinton Roberts Minn. Ct. App. 2014
McGrann Shea Carnival Straughn & Lamb, Chartered v. Clinton Roberts Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., d 811, 816 (Minn. 2006).
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company v. Historic Ivy Tower, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company v. Historic Ivy Tower, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Questions of law are generally not to be decided by a jury,” Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., and the district court errs by submitting a legal question to a jury, see, e.g., Glorvigen, d at 582 (“[W]hether there exists a duty is a legal issue for court resolution.
Moore v. Hoff 821 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Moore v. Hoff 821 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Jerry’s Enters., Inc., v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
See Hanson, 275 Minn. at 205 , d at 870 (“Whether the precautions taken are sufficient is ordinarily a question for the jury to determine.”); Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 796 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 796 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Jerry’s Enters., Inc., v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., (quotation omitted).
Engquist Ex Rel. Engquist v. Loyas 787 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Engquist Ex Rel. Engquist v. Loyas 787 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., (quotation omitted).
Schmitz v. RINKE, NOONAN 783 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Schmitz v. RINKE, NOONAN 783 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“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 present an issue of fact for the jury.” Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.
Faegre & Benson, LLP v. R & R INVESTORS 772 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Faegre & Benson, LLP v. R & R INVESTORS 772 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See, e.g., Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., (identifying four elements of legal-malpractice claim: “(1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) acts constituting negligence or breach of contract; (3) that such acts were the proximate cause of the plaintiffs damages; and (4) that but for defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff would hav
Bryan v. Kissoon 767 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Bryan v. Kissoon 767 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
ANALYSIS A motion for judgment as a matter of law should be granted only where “(1) in the light of the evidence as a whole, it would clearly be the duty of the trial 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).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by