Cited by

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

68 citing documents.

Woehrle v. City of Mankato 647 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Woehrle v. City of Mankato 647 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
The denial of a JNOY “must be affirmed, if, in the record, there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the verdict.” (quotation omitted).
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
The denial of a motion for JNOV is subject to de novo review and must be affirmed if the record contains “any competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the verdict.” (quotation omitted).
Cokley v. City of Otsego 623 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Cokley v. City of Otsego 623 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Muehlhauser v. Erickson 621 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Muehlhauser v. Erickson 621 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(citations and quotations omitted).
Harman v. Heartland Food Company 614 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Harman v. Heartland Food Company 614 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(quotations and citations omitted).
Obst v. Microtron, Inc. 614 N.W.2d 196 Minn. 2000
Obst v. Microtron, Inc. 614 N.W.2d 196 Minn. 2000
we set out the trial court’s standard for considering a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as well as the appellate standard of review when a judgment notwithstanding the verdict has been denied by the trial court.
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
We review the denial of the motion de novo
Kaiser-Bauer v. Mullan 609 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Kaiser-Bauer v. Mullan 609 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Gilbertson v. Leininger 599 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1999
Gilbertson v. Leininger 599 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1999