Cited by

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); see also Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Ins.

We generally “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., d 549, 555 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

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).

It is true that “appellate courts may not sit as factfinders” and cannot “make or modify findings of fact.” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Appellate courts must determine whether the jury’s findings “can be reconciled in any reasonable manner consistent with the evidence and its fair inferences.” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp ., (quotation omitted); (“If the answers to special verdict questions can be reconciled on any theory, the verdict will not be disturbed.”).

The district court applied granted to Petsinger is not “shocking” and does not “result in plain injustice.” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., (quotation omitted).

We generally will not disturb a monetary award unless failing to do so would be “shocking or would result in plain injustice.” See Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., (quotation omitted).

We “liberally construe[]” a jury’s answers on a special-verdict form “to give effect to the intention of the jury” and we must “harmonize all findings if at all possible.” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp.

But appellate courts “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).

“[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., ().

Generally, “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, (noting the “factual nature of a determination that two or more offenses were part of a single course of conduct” and “the desirability of counsel first presenting to the [district] court issues concerning the application of section 609.035”) ; 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.” (quotations and citation omitted)).

“The general rule in Minnesota 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) .

“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., d 549, 555 (Minn. 2008) (quoting Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc., ).

Generally, an appellate court “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., d 549, 555 (Minn. 2008) (quoting Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc., ).

This court 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., d 549, 555 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp.

See, e.g., Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp.

“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., ).

In other words, we will not disturb the 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).

Attorney fees generally “are not recovera ble in litigation unless there is a specific contract permitting or a statute authorizing such recovery.” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp.

Minnesota follows the American rule “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., (M inn.

Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., .

In Minnesota, attorney fees generally “are not recoverable in litigation unless there is a specific contract permitting or a statute authorizing such recovery.” Dunn v. Nat’ l Beverage Corp.

But appellate courts “may not sit as fact finders” and “are not empowered to make or modify findings of fact.” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., (quotations and citations omitted).

Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp.

“The general rule in Minnesota is that attorney fees are not recoverable in litigation unless there is a specific contract permitting or a statute 6 authorizing such recovery.” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., (quotation and citation omitted).

Be c a us e “ a ppe l l a t e c our t s m ay not s i t a s factfinders,” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., (quotation omitted), they review the district court’s findings for clear e rror but may not “make or amend findings of fact,” Butch Levy Plumbing & Hea ting, Inc. v. Sallblad , d 380, 387 (Minn. 1964).

And generally an award will not be disturbed “unless the failure to do so would be shocking or would result in plain injustice.” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., (quotation 2 Appellants also argue that the district court “erred in the process it used to reach” the conclusion that they breached fiduciary duties because it did not sufficiently compare their case to two specific cases.

It is now settled as “a general principle of contract interpretation that a specific provision dealing with a particular subject will control over a different provision dealing only generally with that same subject.” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp ., (quotation omitted), aff’d

10 special verdict form, our review analyzes “whether the special verdict answers can be reconciled in any reasonable manner consistent with the evidence and its fair inferences.” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., (quotations and citation omitted).

“The general rule in Minnesota 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., (quoting Barr/Nelson, Inc. v. Tonto’s Inc. , ).

See Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., (stating that appellate courts are not factfinders, and are not empowered to make or modify findings of fact).

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).

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

*878 “The general rule in Minnesota 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).

Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp.

v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., aff’d

Generally, the appellate court will not set aside a damage award unless “failure to do so would be shocking or would result in plain injustice.” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., (quotation omitted).

Minnesota has adopted the American rule “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).

Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp.