Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Longbehn v. Schoenrock, 727 N.W.2d 153.

53 citing documents.

Ty Bernard v. Superset Tile & Stone, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Scott A Pineur v. Travis J Semmann, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Richard Nichols v. North Memorial Health Care Minn. Ct. App. 2024
When considering a JMOL motion, a district court “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” (quotation omitted).
Craig Stevenson, et al v. Sean Stevenson, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Acuity, A Mutual Insurance Company v. Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, vs. Borton Construction, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The verdict “will not be set aside if it can be sustained on any reasonable theory of the evidence.” Longbehn v. Schoenrock , ; (“If reasonable jurors could differ on the conclusions to be draw n from the record, [JMOL] is not appropriate.”).
Mariam Aromashodu v. Swarovski North America Limited, et al., Airport Retail Group, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
John P. Norusis v. John Goodfellow, et al., Peter Reich, et al., Andrew Kramer, et al., Larry Whitaker … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Statements are defamatory per se if they falsely accuse a person of a crime, of having a loathsome disease, or of unchastity, or if they refer to improper or incompetent conduct involving a person’s business, trade, or profession.”
Michelle A. Krawczyk v. Gregory Scott Aberle, f/k/a Gregory Scott Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Peg Otte, et al v. Allina Health System, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
When considering a JMOL motion, a district court “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and determine whether the verdict is manifestly against the entire evidence.” (
Tiffany Hall v. Pipestone, LLC, et al., JJKEL Lodges, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
JMOL “may be granted only when the evid ence is so overwhelming on one side that reasonable minds cannot differ as to the proper outcome.” (quotations omitted); see Longbehn v. Schoenrock , (“The jury’s verdict will not be set aside if it can be sustained on any reasonable theory of the evidence.” (quotation omitted)).
Meyer Contracting, Inc. v. Scott Fowler, Graham Construction Services, Inc. and counterclaimant, vs. Brian A. Goudge, et al., … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Ashlee Kay Sames v. Scott County, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Generations Law Office, Ltd. v. Lonny D. Thomas, Mark A. Severson, et al., and Thomas Law, P.A., et … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Sumi Mukherjee v. Lisa Vipperman Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Longbehn v. Schoenrock , -59 (Minn. App. 2007).
Jenella Joyce Conda, as trustee for the heirs and next of kin of Ronald Eugene Conda v. Honeywell … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The jury’s verdict will not be set aside if it can be sustained on any reasonable theory of the evidence.” (quotation omitted).
Mark Kedrowski v. Lycoming Engines, a division of AVCO Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A JMOL motion should only be granted in “unequivocal cases.” (quotation omitted); (“The jury’s verdict will not be set aside if it can be sustained on any reasonable theory of the evidence.” (quotation omitted)).
Sherwood Forest, Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The jury’s verdict will not be set aside if it can be sustained on any reasonable theory of the evidence.” Longbehn v. Schoenrock , (quotation omitted).
Anita J. Howard v. Shelly R. Svoboda, M. D., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The jury’s verdict will not be set asi de if it can be sustained on any reasonable theory of the evidence.” Longbehn v. Schoenrock , (quotation omitted).
Hearing Associates, Inc. v. Dr. Sara Downs, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Trivedi, LLC, et al v. Dennis Lang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
William J. Anderson v. Trails End Enterprises of Duluth, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
William J. Anderson v. Trails End Enterprises of Duluth, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jean A. Swanson v. Summit Orthopedics, Ltd., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jean A. Swanson v. Summit Orthopedics, Ltd., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
for the proposition that this comparison led the jury to a “strained interpretation of the evidence.” But that case is inapposite because Longbehn is a defamation per se case appealing a jury’s award of damages.
Kim T. Poole v. Soo Line Railroad Company d/b/a Canadian Pacific Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kim T. Poole v. Soo Line Railroad Company d/b/a Canadian Pacific Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The jury’s verdict will not be set aside if it can be sustained on any reasonable theory of the evidence.” (quotation omitted).
Mark Lanterman, et al v. Michael Roman Afremov Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mark Lanterman, et al v. Michael Roman Afremov Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Courts must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” (quotation omitted).
William Nichols v. Soo Line Railroad d/b/a C. P. Railway, a corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
William Nichols v. Soo Line Railroad d/b/a C. P. Railway, a corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The jury’s verdict will not be set aside if it can be sustained on any reasonable theory of the evidence.” (quotation omitted).
Negassi H. Ghebrehiwet v. Khaled Ghneim, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Negassi H. Ghebrehiwet v. Khaled Ghneim, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The application of law to established facts is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo.”
Alan Klapmeier v. Cirrus Industries, Inc., Cirrus Holding Company, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jason Jalony Cox v. Dakota County, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jason Jalony Cox v. Dakota County, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
DECISION “The district court’s grant of JMOL is a question of law subject to de novo review.”
Alan Klapmeier v. Cirrus Industries, Inc., Cirrus Holding Company, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Courts must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and determine whether the verdict is manifestly against the entire evidence or whether despite the jury’s findings of fact the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (quotation omitted).
David Charles Widmer, et al v. Dallas Jacob Albertson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
David Charles Widmer, et al v. Dallas Jacob Albertson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Susanna D. Smith, et al v. Wells Concrete Products Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Susanna D. Smith, et al v. Wells Concrete Products Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Courts must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and determine whether the verdict is manifestly against the entire evidence or whether despite the jury's findings of fact the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (quotation omitted).
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
“JMOL is appropriate when a jury verdict has no reasonable support in fact or is contrary to law.” see Minn. R. Civ.
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester 846 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester 846 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 834 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 834 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 796 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Willis v. Indiana Harbor Steamship Co. 790 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Willis v. Indiana Harbor Steamship Co. 790 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“JMOL is appropriate when a jury verdict has no reasonable support in fact or is contrary to law.” (); see also Minn. R. Civ.
Yath v. Fairview Clinics, N. P. 767 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 2009