Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., 784 N.W.2d 220.

43 citing documents.

David Lindstrom, Trustee of the Gladys B Lindstrom Living Trust, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., d 220, 229 (Minn. 2010).
In re the Guardianship of: Doris Anita Seward Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Guardianship of: Doris Anita Seward Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc.
Central Specialties, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Central Specialties, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc.
Charles A. Laliberte, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., (stating the MWA’s purpose is to protect parties who report violations of the law with the public good in mind).
James F. Christie, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., we determine whether the evidence is sufficient by applying “the rules of law laid down in the charge,” Coenen v. Buckman Bldg.
Eric Berg, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[W]e construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.” Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., d 220, 229 (Minn. 2010).
Daniel J. Cafferty, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc.
Robert Grado, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., -27 (Minn. 2010).
Grand Central Lofts Phase I Condominiums, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Judgment as a matter of law is proper when the jury’s verdict “has no reasonable support in fact or is contrary to law.” Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., aff’d, see Minn. R. Civ.
Tiffany Hall, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Construing the evidence in the light most favora ble to the verdict “does not mean that [courts] are precluded from actually examining the evidence to assess whether there is a sufficient basis for the jury’s finding.” Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc.
Murphy Dressen Consulting, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. , Lester Bldg.
A17-2040 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict “does not mean that [courts] are precluded from actually examining the evidence to assess whether there is a sufficient basis for the jury’s finding.” Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc.
Peter J. Andersen, Sr., as Trustee for the Peter J. Andersen, Sr. Family Trust, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When a district court considers a motion for JMOL, “it must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the verdict is manifestly against the entire evidence or whether despite the jury’s findings of fact the moving party is entitled judgment (sic) as a matter of law.” Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., -40 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).
Friedlander v. Edwards Lifesciences, LLC 900 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2017
Friedlander v. Edwards Lifesciences, LLC 900 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2017
In analyzing what purpose the whistle-blower is required to have under the statute, we concluded that to act in good faith, the putative whistleblower must act with “the purpose of blowing the whistle, i.e., to expose an illegality.” M We reaffirmed this definition of “good faith” in Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., (plurality opinion); see also id.
Mark Schaefer v. Cargill Kitchen Solutions, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mark Schaefer v. Cargill Kitchen Solutions, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., Wayne v. MasterShield, Inc., review denied (Minn. Oct.
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
Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict “does not mean that 6 [courts] are precluded from actually examining the evidence to assess whether there is a sufficient basis for the jury’s finding.” Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc.
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
Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict “does not mean that [courts] are precluded from actually examining the evidence to assess whether there is a sufficient basis for the jury’s finding.” Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Kirk v. State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Alan Klapmeier v. Cirrus Industries, Inc., Cirrus Holding Company, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeffrey P. Kirk v. State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Protected actions are “those where the employee discloses conduct the employee reasonably believes evidences a violation of the law.” Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., -28 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).
Alan Klapmeier v. Cirrus Industries, Inc., Cirrus Holding Company, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate when a jury’s verdict has no reasonable support in fact or is contrary to law.” Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., aff’d
James Jones v. Green Bay Packaging, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
James Jones v. Green Bay Packaging, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
and review de novo the district court’s interpretation of statutes, Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc.
Susanna D. Smith v. Wells Concrete Products Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Susanna D. Smith v. Wells Concrete Products Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate when a jury's verdict has no reasonable support in fact or is contrary to law.” Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., d 855, 861 (Minn. App. 2008), aff'd
Gieseke v. IDCA, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 2014
Gieseke v. IDCA, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 2014
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc.
Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC 835 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2013
Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC 835 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2013
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., (quoting Minn. R. Civ.
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
Kid-well v. Sybaritic, Inc.
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
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., (quoting Minn. R. Civ.
Coursolle v. EMC Insurance Group, Inc. 794 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Coursolle v. EMC Insurance Group, Inc. 794 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
& Univs., see also Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., -27 (Minn.2010) (plurality opinion); Kratzer v. Welsh Cos., LLC, -19 (Minn.2009).
Swenson v. Nickaboine 793 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 2011
Swenson v. Nickaboine 793 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 2011
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc.