Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Winter v. Kranz, 684 N.W.2d 404.

22 citing documents.

Orono Oaks Volunteer Road Association, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
the amount of $15,000 from [OOA’s] funds to compensate the members of [the road association] for damages caused by the contractual breach of [OOA] to keep the road in a safe and well-maintained condition.” The term “actual damages” means an “amount awarded to a complainant to compensate for a proven injury or loss; damages that repay actual losses.” Ray v. Miller Meester Advert., Inc., (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 394 (7th ed. 1999)).
Amy Sweasy Tamburino, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
for lost compensation that occurs after the time of trial.” Ray v. Miller Meester Advert., Inc.
Meagan Abel, Minn. 2020
8 “In construing the MHRA, we have at times ‘relied on principles developed under Title VII’ but we are not bound by interpretations of Title VII.” Ray v. Miller Meester Advert., Inc., (quoting Turner v. IDS Fin.
Assata Kenneh, Minn. 2020
See Ray v. Miller Meester Advert., Inc., (recognizing “ significant differences” between the Human Rights Act and Title VII); n.5 (Minn. 1997) (observing that “Title VII’s statutory prohibition turns on discrimination, while Minnesota’s statutory language includes the specific definition of sexu
Timothy Wodarck, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In reaching its decision, the district court relied on Ray v. Miller Meester Advert., Inc., -08 (Minn. 2004), and Feges v. Perkins Rests., Inc. , to conclude 3 that the award of lost future earning capacity was unsupported as a matter of law .
SRRT Properties, LP, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Ray v. Miller Meester Adver., Inc., aff’d
Miller v. Soo Line R.R. Co. 925 N.W.2d 642 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Ray v. Miller Meester Advert., Inc. , , 407 (Minn. 2004) (quotations omitted); see also Tyroll , d at 133 ("Only damages that result from the special character, condition, or circumstances of the injured person are special damages.").
Herbert B. Fick, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Poehler v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. 899 N.W.2d 135 Minn. 2017
And we have defined “actual damages” as “[a]n amount awarded to a complainant to compensate for a proven injury or loss; damages that repay actual losses.” Ray v. Miller Meester Advert., Inc., (citing Damages, Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999)).
Aaron Larson v. BNSF Railway Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[A] tort victim may recover future damages caused by the tortfeasor even though it may be difficult to determine the exact amount of those damages.” Ray v. Miller Meester Advert., Inc.
State of Minnesota v. Quintin Lynn Thomas 882 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Inc., aff’d, and selecting jury instructions.
James Poehler v. Cincinnati Insurance Company 874 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ray v. Miller Meester Advert., Inc., (quotations omitted).
Ernest Malisheske, Great West Casualty Company, Intervenor v. Kevin Kortan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, e.g., Ray v. Miller Meester Adver., Inc., (concluding that evidence with relatively low probative value and high likelihood of prejudice should have been excluded under rule 403), aff’d on other grounds
In the Matter of the WELFARE OF the CHILD OF: D.L.D. and M.E.F., Parents 865 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
RKL Landholdings, LLC v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Company, 1563 University Ave, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“An evidentiary error is prejudicial if it might reasonably be said to have changed the result of the trial.” Ray v. Miller Meester Adver., Inc., aff’d
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 834 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
The term “actual damages” means “ ‘[a]n amount awarded to a complainant to compensate for a proven injury or loss; damages that repay actual losses.’ ” Ray v. Miller Meester Adver., Inc., (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 394 (7th ed.1999)) (alteration in original).
Coursolle v. EMC Insurance Group, Inc. 794 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
See Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc., -09 (Minn.2004); Fletcher v. St.
Cannon v. Minneapolis Police Department 783 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Ray v. Miller Meester Adver., Inc., aff'd, we examined the damages-multiplier provision of the MHRA.
Krueger v. Zeman Construction Co. 781 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 2010
Friend v. Gopher Co., Inc. 771 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Compare Anderson, d at 624 (noting general adherence to Title VII precedents) with Ray v. Miller Meester Adver., Inc., -09 (Minn.2004) (identifying cases in which the court has rejected federal precedents as inconsistent with “more onerous” requirements of MHRA).
Milner v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 725 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Ray v. Miller Meester Adver., Inc., aff'd
Noske v. Friedberg 713 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Ray v. Miller Meester Adver., Inc., (discussing compensatory damages); see B.F.