Cited by

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).

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).

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).

“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).

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).

“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).

(stating that “adequacy of the verdict rests within the discretion of the [district] court”) (footnote omitted)).

“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).

“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).

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

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).

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).

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).

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).

“[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).

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).

We will uphold the verdict if the jury’s answers “can be reconciled on any theory.”

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).

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).

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).

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).

A decision to deny a new trial will stand unless the verdict is “manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence.” (quotation omitted).

(stating that we give deference to the jury’s verdict when there is conflicting medical testimony); Gaspers v. Minneapolis Elec.

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.’ ” ().

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.’ ” ().