Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lamb v. Jordan, 333 N.W.2d 852.

132 citing documents.

Kelly Michels, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-56 (Minn. 1983) (quotation omitted).
Anthony Kelley, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[JMOL] ‘may be granted only when the evidence is so overwhelming on one side that reasonable minds cannot differ as to the proper outcome.’” () (other quotation omitted).
Minn. 2022
This means that to reverse, the evidence must be “ ‘so overwhelming 9 on one side that reasonable minds cannot differ as to the proper outcome.’ ” (quoting 4 D. McFarland & W. Keppel, Minnesota Civil Practice § 2402 (1979 and Supp. 1982)).
Christina Ginther, Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“In applying this standard [for JMOL], (1) all the evidence, including that favoring the verdict, must be taken into account, (2) the evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and (3) the court may not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses.” Kedrowski v. Lycoming Engines , ( ).
Timothy Wodarck, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“‘In applying this standard, (1) all the evidence, including that favoring the verdict, must be taken into account, (2) the evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and (3) the court may not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the 4 witnesses.’” Kedrowski, d at 55 (quoting Lamb v. Jordan , ).
Mark Kedrowski, Minn. 2019
Judgment as a matter of law “ ‘may be granted only when the evidence is so overwhelming on one side that reasonable minds cannot differ as to the proper outcome.’ ” Lamb v. Jordan , (quoting 4 Douglas McFarland & William J. Keppel, Minnesota Civil Practice § 2402 (1st ed. 1979)).
Melissa Regouski, as court-appointed Guardian and Conservator for Morgan Moeller, Ward and Protected Person, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Nicholas Houchins, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
–56 (Minn. 1983) (quotation omitted).
Aaron Larson v. BNSF Railway Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Aaron Larson v. BNSF Railway Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
–56 (Minn. 1983) (quotation omitted).
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
though Schmidt and other witnesses claimed his act was done in a joking manner or as horseplay, there was no corroborating evidence admitted at trial supporting such a claim or conclusion.” Although this may have been a close case at trial, it is not an exceptional case in which the jury’s finding “is contradicted by logic and [the] evidence at almost every point.” (concluding that evidence did not justify jury verdict in case where key witness’s story was inconsistent with complaint, did not ap
Mark Lanterman v. Michael Roman Afremov Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mark Lanterman v. Michael Roman Afremov Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In deciding a motion for JMOL, the district court must not “weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses.”
Alan Klapmeier v. Cirrus Industries, Inc., Cirrus Holding Company, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Alan Klapmeier v. Cirrus Industries, Inc., Cirrus Holding Company, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In applying this standard, “the court may not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses.”
Susanna D. Smith v. Wells Concrete Products Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Susanna D. Smith v. Wells Concrete Products Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In applying this standard, “the court may not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses.”
Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency 728 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2007
Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency 728 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2007
(stating that a court may grant judgment as a matter of law only when “ ‘reasonable minds cannot differ as to the proper outcome’ ” and that when applying this standard, “the court may not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses” (citation omitted)).
Border State Bank of Greenbush v. Bagley Livestock Exchange, Inc. 690 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Border State Bank of Greenbush v. Bagley Livestock Exchange, Inc. 690 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
“A new trial should not be granted unless the verdict is so contrary to the preponderance of the evidence as to imply that the jury failed to consider all the evidence or acted under some mistake or from some improper motive, Mas, feeling or caprice, instead of honestly and dispassionately exercising its judgment.” -56 (Minn.1983) (quotation omitted).
Clifford v. Geritom Med, Inc. 681 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 2004
Clifford v. Geritom Med, Inc. 681 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 2004
Peterson v. BASF Corp. 657 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Peterson v. BASF Corp. 657 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
The appellate court “may not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses.” (citation omitted).
Knuth Ex Rel. Knuth v. Emergency Care Consultants, P.A. 644 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Knuth Ex Rel. Knuth v. Emergency Care Consultants, P.A. 644 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
The grant of a motion for JNOV is only appropriate “when the evidence is so overwhelming on one side that reasonable minds cannot differ as to the proper outcome.” (quotation omitted).
Muehlhauser v. Erickson 621 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Muehlhauser v. Erickson 621 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Sentinel Management Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 615 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 2000
Sentinel Management Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 615 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 2000
d on the ground that the evidence does not justify the-verdict, we will uphold the court’s decision “unless the verdict is so contrary to the preponderance of the evidence as to imply that the jury failed to consider all the evidence or acted under some mistake or from some improper motive, bias, feeling or caprice, instead of honestly and dispassionately exercising its judgment.” -56 (Minn.1983) ().
Frykman v. University of Minnesota-Duluth 611 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Frykman v. University of Minnesota-Duluth 611 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Honeywell, Inc. 611 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Honeywell, Inc. 611 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
• •' -56 (Minn.1983) (citation omitted); see also Eliason v. Textron, Inc., (explaining new trial motions should be granted cautiously and reluctantly).
Vangsness v. Vangsness 607 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Vangsness v. Vangsness 607 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
This deference exists because the trial court “has the feel of the trial.”
Baker v. Ploetz 597 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Baker v. Ploetz 597 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
The district court may grant JNOV when “the verdict is against the overwhelming evidence so ‘that reasonable minds cannot differ as to the proper outcome.’ ” Bruchas v. Preventive Care, Inc., ().
Baker v. Amtrak National Railroad Passenger 588 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Baker v. Amtrak National Railroad Passenger 588 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Bruchas v. Preventive Care, Inc. 553 N.W.2d 440 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Bruchas v. Preventive Care, Inc. 553 N.W.2d 440 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
The court may grant judgment notwithstanding the verdict when the verdict is against the overwhelming evidence so “that reasonable minds cannot differ as to the proper outcome.”
M.L. v. Magnuson 531 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
M.L. v. Magnuson 531 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Boschee v. Duevel 530 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Boschee v. Duevel 530 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Smits v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 525 N.W.2d 554 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Smits v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 525 N.W.2d 554 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(JNOV appropriate only if evidence so overwhelmingly one-sided that reasonable minds cannot differ about correct result).