Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Dunn v. National Beverage Corp., 745 N.W.2d 549.

87 citing documents.

650 North Main Association v. Frauenshuh, Inc. (Territorial Springs Riverview, LLC, Frauenshuh Sweeney, LLC), Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, Doe … 885 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
If answers on a special verdict form “can be reconciled on any theory” consistent with the evidence and the fair inferences drawn from the evidence, “the verdict will not be disturbed.” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., (quotation omitted).
Mark Lanterman v. Michael Roman Afremov Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mark Lanterman v. Michael Roman Afremov Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., (stating that “[i]f the answers to special verdict questions can be reconciled on any theory, the verdict will not be disturbed.” (quotation omitted)).
Boundary Waters Bank v. William H. McGaughey, Lian Y. McGaughey Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Boundary Waters Bank v. William H. McGaughey, Lian Y. McGaughey Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In Minnesota, attorney fees “are not recoverable in litigation unless there is a specific contract permitting or a statute authorizing such recovery.” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp.
CSM Equities, LLC v. Woodland Village Investments Limited Partnership Minn. Ct. App. 2016
CSM Equities, LLC v. Woodland Village Investments Limited Partnership Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp.
Highland Bank v. Mary L. Wyatt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Highland Bank v. Mary L. Wyatt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
21, 2007).2 In Minnesota, attorney fees “are not recoverable in litigation unless there is a specific contract permitting or a statute authorizing such recovery.” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp.
In re Minnwest Bank Litigation Concerning Real Property in Otsego, Minnesota, Minnwest Bank v. RTB, LLC 873 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re Minnwest Bank Litigation Concerning Real Property in Otsego, Minnesota, Minnwest Bank v. RTB, LLC 873 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Generally, we will not disturb a damage award unless the ‘failure to do so would be shocking or would result in plain injustice.’” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., (quoting Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc., d 194, 199 (Minn. 1986)).
Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A. v. Gene Rechtzigel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A. v. Gene Rechtzigel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
19 In Minnesota, the recovery of attorney fees is governed by the American rule, which “is that attorney fees are not recoverable in litigation unless there is a specific contract permitting or a statute authorizing such recovery.” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., (quotation omitted); see Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc., (referring to this rule as “[t]he American rule”).
Michael O'Byrne v. Spring Valley Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michael O'Byrne v. Spring Valley Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
If multiple answers on a special verdict form “can be reconciled on any theory” consistent with the evidence and fair inferences drawn from that evidence, “the verdict will not be disturbed.” See Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., (quotation omitted).
Kaytee Hooser v. Keith Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kaytee Hooser v. Keith Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp.
Jovani Nassar v. Fady Chamoun Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Beverly Alto v. Kenneth Alto Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Beverly Alto v. Kenneth Alto Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp.
Jovani Nassar v. Fady Chamoun Minn. Ct. App. 2014
If the answers to special verdict questions can be reconciled on any theory, the verdict will not be disturbed.” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., (quotations and citation omitted).4 Appellants rely on a North Carolina case, Pendergrast v. Aiken, 236 S.E.2d 787 (N.C.
State ex rel. Swanson v. 3M Co. 845 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2014
Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom 845 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 2014
Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom 845 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 2014
See, ("[A]ppellate courts may not sit as factfinders, and are not empowered to make or modify findings of fact.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
State ex rel. Swanson v. 3M Co. 845 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2014
See Dunn v. Nat’l. Beverage Corp., (“[A]ppellate courts may not sit as factfinders, and are not empowered to make or modify findings of fact.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Butch Levy Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Sallblad, 267 Minn. 283, 293 , (“It is not within the province of t
State ex rel. Swanson v. Integrity Advance, LLC 846 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State ex rel. Swanson v. Integrity Advance, LLC 846 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Generally, we will not disturb a damage award unless the failure to do so would be shocking or would result in plain injustice.” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., (quotation omitted).
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. 832 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 2013
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. 832 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 2013
This is true even though this court might find the facts to be different if it had the factfinding function.”); see also Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., (“[A]ppellate courts may not ‘sit as factfinders,’ and are ‘not empowered to make or modify findings of fact.’ ” (citations omitted)); Butch Levy Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Sallblad, 267 Minn. 283, 293 , (“It is not within the province of this court to make or amend fin
Gieseke ex rel. Diversified Water Diversion, Inc. v. IDCA, Inc. 826 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Gieseke ex rel. Diversified Water Diversion, Inc. v. IDCA, Inc. 826 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
will not disturb a damage award unless the failure to do so would be shocking or would result in plain injustice.” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., (quotation omitted); see Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., (“A jury award will not be set aside unless it is manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence.”); Verhel v. Indep.
Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
‘‘[A] special verdict form is to be liberally construed to give effect to the intention of the jury and on appellate review it is the court’s responsibility to harmonize all findings if at all possible.” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., () (internal quotation marks removed).
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 788 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 788 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
8 (2008) (authorizing costs and fee awards in connection with equitable relief granted under the MBCA); cf. Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., (holding that award of costs and fees was not available under the Minnesota Franchise Act absent some other relief granted under the act).
Minneapolis Police Department v. Kelly 776 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Minneapolis Police Department v. Kelly 776 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
If the answers to special verdict questions can be reconciled on any theory, the verdict will not be disturbed.” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., (quotations omitted).