Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite George v. Estate of Baker, 724 N.W.2d 1.

93 citing documents.

Alby v. BNSF Ry. Co. 918 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Alby v. BNSF Ry. Co. 918 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(quotation omitted) ); see also George v. Estate of Baker , , 6 (Minn. 2006) (stating that appellate courts in Minnesota "will not disturb a jury's answer to special verdict questions if it can be reconciled on any theory, and will set aside a special verdict answer only if it is perverse and palpably contrary to the evidence" (quotation omitted) ).
Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. Tempworks Mgmt. Servs., Inc. 913 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 2018
Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. Tempworks Mgmt. Servs., Inc. 913 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 2018
George v. Estate of Baker , , 10 (Minn. 2006).
, A17-1345 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A17-2040 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Heather Jones, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A jury instruction is erroneous if it “materially misstates the law.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L. M. P. and L. R. D., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Anita J. Howard, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“An improper evidentiary ruling resulting in the erroneous admission of evidence will only compel a new trial if it results in prejudicial error to the complaining party.” George v. Estate of Baker
Scott Raden, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Mansoor Akhtar, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jane Doe 136 v. Ralph Liebsch 872 N.W.2d 875 Minn. 2015
Marcia Lee Stresemann, d/b/a Affiliated Counseling Center, LLC v. Lucinda Jesson, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human … 868 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 2015
Marcia Lee Stresemann, d/b/a Affiliated Counseling Center, LLC v. Lucinda Jesson, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human … 868 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 2015
(“A petition for review to this court must specify the legal issues to be reviewed.”).
Mark L. Wiebusch v. Donald Leo Tschida Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mark L. Wiebusch v. Donald Leo Tschida Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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
In any event, the statute governing expert 4 In an ordinary negligence case, the supreme court generally tends to combine the concepts of cause-in-fact and proximate cause into what is referred to as the “substantial factor test”: a “negligent act is a direct, or proximate, cause of harm if the act was a substantial factor in the harm’s occurrence.” see also Mike Steenson, Minnesota Negligence Law and the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harms, 37 Wm.
Robert R Elliott, individually, and as trustee of the Robert R. Elliott Revocable Trust and the Elliott Mandelheim … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Robert R Elliott, individually, and as trustee of the Robert R. Elliott Revocable Trust and the Elliott Mandelheim … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But this court “will not disturb a jury’s answer to special verdict questions if it can be reconciled on any theory, and will set aside a special verdict answer only if it is perverse and palpably contrary to the evidence.” d 1, 6 (Minn. 2006) (quotation omitted).
Gieseke v. IDCA, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 2014
Gieseke v. IDCA, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 2014
TC/American Monorail, Inc. v. Custom Conveyor Corp. 840 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2013
TC/American Monorail, Inc. v. Custom Conveyor Corp. 840 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2013
“An evidentiary error is prejudicial if it might reasonably have influenced the jury and changed the result of the trial.”
In re Minnesota Power for Authority to Increase Rates for Electric Service in Minnesota 838 N.W.2d 747 Minn. 2013
In re Minnesota Power for Authority to Increase Rates for Electric Service in Minnesota 838 N.W.2d 747 Minn. 2013
See, -8 (Minn.2006) ("A petition for review to this court must specify the legal issues to be reviewed [and we] will generally not address issues that were not specifically raised in the petition for review.” (citations omitted)).
Emerson v. Board of Independent School District 199 809 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2012
Emerson v. Board of Independent School District 199 809 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2012
Previously, we have held that we will not address issues raised for the first time on appeal, particularly when the issue is raised in a reply brief, (citations omitted).
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
State v. Zais 805 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 2011
State v. Zais 805 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 2011
Therefore, (stating the court "will generally not address issues that were not specifically raised in the petition for review”).
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
A jury instruction is erroneous if, when read as a whole, the instruction materially misstates the law, or “is apt to confuse and mislead” the jury, Springfield Farmers Elevator Co. v. Hogenson Constr.
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 788 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 788 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re Estate of Butler 782 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re Estate of Butler 782 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(explaining that the evidence must be “so overwhelming on one side that reasonable minds cannot differ as to the proper outcome”) (quoting Clifford v. Geritom Med.
In Re the Marriage of Melius v. Melius 765 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Marriage of Melius v. Melius 765 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2008
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2008
901, 903 (1934); (“Minnesota applies the substantial factor test for causation.