Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Bianchi v. Nordby, 409 N.W.2d 835.

34 citing documents.

State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
On appeal, to support its argument that the prohibition against juror contact does not apply once the district court rules on a Schwartz hearing request.
State v. Shoen 598 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1999
State v. Shoen 598 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1999
See, (stating that a Schwartz hearing is appropriate to correct possible clerical errors in a jury’s verdict).
State v. Shoen 578 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1998
State v. Shoen 578 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1998
See, (stating that a Schwartz hearing is appropriate to correct possible clerical error in jury’s verdict).
Covey v. Detroit Lakes Printing Co. 490 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Covey v. Detroit Lakes Printing Co. 490 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Kronebusch v. MVBA Harvestore System 488 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Kronebusch v. MVBA Harvestore System 488 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
ERICKSON BY ERICKSON v. Hammermeister 458 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
ERICKSON BY ERICKSON v. Hammermeister 458 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Lieser v. Sexton 441 N.W.2d 805 Minn. 1989
Lieser v. Sexton 441 N.W.2d 805 Minn. 1989
Jewett v. Deutsch 437 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Jewett v. Deutsch 437 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
set forth the standard for jury instructions: What is required of jury instructions ‘is that the charge as a whole convey a clear and correct understanding of the law of the case.
Olsen v. Special School Dist. No. 1 427 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Olsen v. Special School Dist. No. 1 427 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
4, 1988); -40 (Minn.1987) (a jury instruction informing the jury that the court would perform the discounting required by section 604.07 was approved by the supreme court).
Rambaum v. Swisher 423 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Rambaum v. Swisher 423 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
that the court and not the jury should apply the discount rate.
Schreiner v. Schmitz 418 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Schreiner v. Schmitz 418 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
For example, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s instruction to the jury as follows: You are specifically instructed that any adjustments for discount to present value, inflation, or other similar economic factors will be made by the Court to the extent required by law.
Leonard v. Parrish 420 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Leonard v. Parrish 420 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Senf v. Bolluyt 419 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Senf v. Bolluyt 419 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
ANALYSIS I. “The general rule is that a jury verdict may not be impeached after the jury has been discharged when the facts sought to be shown inhere in the verdict itself.” (citing Bauer v. Kum *647 mer, 244 Minn. 488, 490-91 , ).
Kleeman v. Cadwell 414 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Johnson v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc. 414 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kleeman v. Cadwell 414 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld an award discounted by the trial judge according to the annuity method.
Johnson v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc. 414 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Jonsson v. Ames Construction, Inc. 409 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Jonsson v. Ames Construction, Inc. 409 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
the Minnesota Supreme Court determined that the court is required to discount the jury award to present value.
Frank v. Frank 409 N.W.2d 70 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Frank v. Frank 409 N.W.2d 70 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Zimmerman, d at 263; see also Nebben v. Kosmalski, 807 Minn. 211 , 217, , 238 (Minn.1976); Gardner v. Germain, 264 Minn. 61 , Cullen v. City of Minneapolis, 201 Minn. 102 , 276 N.W.