Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Pouliot v. Fitzsimmons, 582 N.W.2d 221.

68 citing documents.

Smart Construction & Remodeling, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
3 When a district court considers a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, “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 to judgment as a matter of law.”
A minor child by his mother and natural guardian, Chelsea Rose, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Unless the evidence is practically conclusive against the verdict, [appellate courts] will not set the verdict aside.” (quotations omitted).
Eric S. Walker, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Daniel J. Cafferty, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A party is entitled to JMOL if “the verdict is manifestly against the enti re evidence” or there is no “competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the verdict.” (quotation omitted).
A19-1654 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
When appealing a district court’s decision to deny its motion for judgment as a matter of law , an appellant’s submission must permit this court to determine whether the re cord contains “any competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the verdict.” (quotation omitted); see also , Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp. , (noting that when reviewing decisions to grant or deny motions for judgment as a matter of law, appellate courts apply the same standard as the district court, viewing the evidence in
Mark Kedrowski, Minn. 2019
Waymouth Farms, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
, A18-1302 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and an appellate court must not set the verdict aside if it can be sustained on any reasonable theory of the evidence.”
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
Pouliot v. Fitzsimmons , , 224 (Minn. 1998).
Mark Kedrowski, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We will not set aside a jury verdict “if it can be sustained on any reasonable theory of the evidence.”
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company as subrogee of Peter and Susan Fox, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jason Jalony Cox v. Dakota County Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jason Jalony Cox v. Dakota County Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The jury’s verdict will not be set aside “if it can be sustained on any reasonable theory of the evidence.”
Michael O'Byrne v. Spring Valley Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michael O'Byrne v. Spring Valley Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
RKL Landholdings, LLC v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Company, 1563 University Ave, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
RKL Landholdings, LLC v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Company, 1563 University Ave, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We will affirm the denial “if, in the record, there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the verdict.” (quotation omitted).
Gieseke v. IDCA, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 2014
Gieseke v. IDCA, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 2014
When the district court has denied a motion for judgment as a matter of law, we must affirm “if, in the record, there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the verdict.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 816 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2012
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. 784 N.W.2d 220 Minn. 2010
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. A.P.I., Inc. 738 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. A.P.I., Inc. 738 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Dunn v. National Beverage Corp. 729 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Dunn v. National Beverage Corp. 729 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Longbehn v. Schoenrock 727 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Longbehn v. Schoenrock 727 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
The jury’s verdict will not be set aside “if it can be sustained on any reasonable theory of the evidence.”
Lake Superior Center Authority v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc. 715 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Lake Superior Center Authority v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc. 715 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
“Unless the evidence is practically conclusive against the verdict, this court will not set the verdict aside.” (quotation omitted).
Commercial Associates, Inc. v. Work Connection, Inc. 712 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Commercial Associates, Inc. v. Work Connection, Inc. 712 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
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
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
Peterson v. BASF Corp. 675 N.W.2d 57 Minn. 2004
Peterson v. BASF Corp. 675 N.W.2d 57 Minn. 2004
Taney v. Independent School District No. 624 673 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Taney v. Independent School District No. 624 673 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Thompson v. Hughart 664 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Norwest Bank Minnesota North, N.A. v. Beckler 663 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Norwest Bank Minnesota North, N.A. v. Beckler 663 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Thompson v. Hughart 664 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
The denial of a motion for JNOV must be affirmed if there is “any competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the verdict.” (quotation omitted); see also Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc., (holding that a jury verdict will be sustained on any reasonable theory based on the evidence).
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
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
American States Insurance Co. v. Ankrum 651 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
American States Insurance Co. v. Ankrum 651 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(JNOV); (directed verdict), review denied (Minn. Aug.