Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Raze v. Mueller, 587 N.W.2d 645.

40 citing documents.

BGD, LLC v. Stephen K. Burns, Pacer Minerals, LLC, a South Dakota Limited Liability Company, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A reviewing court should not set aside a jury’s special verdict “unless it is manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.” d 645, 648 (Minn. 1999) (quotations omitted).
Kelly Michels v. Terry Dean Johnson, Sr., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
James L. Lang, et al v. Flagship Bank Minnesota f/d/b/a Landmark Community Bank, N.A., et al., Eric Knight, … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A reviewing court should not set aside a jury verdict on damages “unless it is manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.” (quotation omitted).
All-American Ice L.L.C., d/b/a All-American Arena Products v. American Arena, L.L.C. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
James F. Christie v. Estate of Dilman Christie, et al., Charles Christie, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
5 Appellate courts should not set aside a jury verdict on damages “unless it is manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.” (footnote and quotations omitted).
Tony Flattum v. Pro Tech Restoration, Inc., Brian Jovan Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“On appeal from a denial of a motion for a new trial, an appellate court should not set aside a jury verdict unless it is manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.” (quotation omitted).
SRRT Properties, LP, IDC Properties, LLC v. Nova Consulting Group, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
22 Nova argues that “th e verdict was excessive” and “remittitur should have been ordered because SRRT’s damages, if any, were limited to $2,300.” On appeal, a reviewing court should not set aside a jury verdict on damages “unless it is manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.” (quotation omitted).
Cory L. Hendricksen, as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Ashton Hendricksen, decedent v. Tristan … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“On appeal from a denial of a motion for a new trial, an appellate court should not set aside a jury verdict unless it is manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.” (quotation omitted).
Nicholas Houchins v. Soo Line Railroad Company d/b/a Canadian Pacific Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that “adequacy of the verdict rests within the discretion of the [district] court”) (footnote omitted)).
Carney Lien v. Casper Construction, Inc., et al., Veit & Company, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“On appeal from a denial of a motion for a new trial, an appell ate court should not set aside a jury verdict unless it is manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.” (quotations and footnote omitted).
SM Investments, LLC v. Roger Erickson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“On appeal from a denial of a motion for a new trial, an appellate court should not set aside a jury verdict unless it is manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.” Raze v. Mueller , d 645, 648 (Minn. 1999) (quotations and foot note omitted).
Alby v. BNSF Ry. Co. 918 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Alby v. BNSF Ry. Co. 918 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Raze v. Mueller , , 648 (Minn. 1999) ("When there is conflicting medical testimony as to the nature and extent of a plaintiff's injuries, we give great deference to the jury's verdict."); see also Kinning v. Sutton , 300 Minn. 555 , 555-56, , 486 (1974) (affirming denial of defendant's motion for new trial where evidence
Martha Marisol Castaneda v. Gregory Luverne Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We will not reverse the district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial unless the jury verdict “is manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.” 4 (quotation omitted).
Sherwood Forest, Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
is not justified by the evidence, or is contrary to law.” “On appeal from a denial of a motion for a new trial, an appellate court should not set aside a jury verdict unless it is manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.” (quotations omitted).
Anita J. Howard v. Shelly R. Svoboda, M. D., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
is not justified by the evidence, or is contrary to law.” “On appeal from 7 a denial of a motion for a new trial, an appellate court should not set aside a jury verdict unless it is manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.” (quotations 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
is not justified by the evidence, or is contrary to law.” “On appeal from a denial of a motion for a new trial, an appellate court should not set aside a jury verdict unless it is manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the 10 light most favorable to the verdict.” (quotations omitted).
Randall Norman, et al v. Crow Wing Cooperative Power & Light Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Randall Norman, et al v. Crow Wing Cooperative Power & Light Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[A]n appellate court should not set aside a jury verdict unless it is manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole.” (internal quotation omitted).
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
v. Anda, (stating that an appellate court will defer to a jury’s special-verdict decision and will set it aside “only if it is perverse and palpably contrary to the evidence, or where the evidence is so clear as to leave no room for differences among reasonable persons”); (declining to set aside jury verdict when there was conflicting medical evidence on the plaintiff’s injury).
Kaytee Hooser, et al v. Keith Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kaytee Hooser, et al v. Keith Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We will uphold the verdict if the jury’s answers “can be reconciled on any theory.”
Julie Ann Holtegaard and David William Streng, Co-Trustees for the Next-of-Kin of Bruce Edward Streng, deceased v. Soo … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Julie Ann Holtegaard and David William Streng, Co-Trustees for the Next-of-Kin of Bruce Edward Streng, deceased v. Soo … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A reviewing court should not set aside a verdict on damages “unless it is manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.” (quotation omitted).
Renswick v. Wenzel 819 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Renswick v. Wenzel 819 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
We give due deference to the jury in its fact-finding role, refusing to set aside a jury verdict unless it is “manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.” (quotation omitted).
Engquist Ex Rel. Engquist v. Loyas 787 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Engquist Ex Rel. Engquist v. Loyas 787 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
A reviewing court should not set aside a verdict on damages “unless it is manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.” (quotation omitted).
Longbehn v. Schoenrock 727 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Longbehn v. Schoenrock 727 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
A reviewing court should not set aside a jury verdict on damages “unless it is manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.” (quotation omitted).
Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc. 681 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc. 681 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
A decision to deny a new trial will stand unless the verdict is “manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence.” (quotation omitted).
In Re Silicone Implant Insurance Coverage Litigation 667 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 2003
In Re Silicone Implant Insurance Coverage Litigation 667 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 2003
(stating that we give deference to the jury’s verdict when there is conflicting medical testimony); Gaspers v. Minneapolis Elec.
Navarre v. South Washington County Schools 652 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2002
Navarre v. South Washington County Schools 652 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2002
In regards to a motion for a new trial, we will not set aside a jury verdict on an appeal from a district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial “unless it is ‘manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.’ ” ().
Navarre v. South Washington County Schools 633 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Navarre v. South Washington County Schools 633 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
This court must affirm the denial of a new-trial motion unless the verdict is “ ‘manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.’ ” ().