Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc., 649 N.W.2d 142.
- Wallace Armstrong v. Hasbargen Logging, Inc., State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
Wallace Armstrong v. Hasbargen Logging, Inc., State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc.
- State of Minnesota v. Amy Andrea Horsfield Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
State of Minnesota v. Amy Andrea Horsfield
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc.
- Mark L. Wiebusch v. Donald Leo Tschida Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
Mark L. Wiebusch v. Donald Leo Tschida
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Where instructions overall fairly and correctly state the applicable law, appellant is not entitled to a new trial.” Hilligloss v. Cargill, Inc., (quotation and citation omitted).
- Jovani Nassar v. Fady Chamoun Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
Jovani Nassar v. Fady Chamoun
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The district court has broad discretion in determining jury instructions and we will not reverse in the absence of abuse of discretion.” Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc.
- Samuel Deweese, (A13-2152), (A13-2160) v. Lakeview Clinic, Ltd., (A13-2152), (A13-2160). Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
Samuel Deweese, (A13-2152), (A13-2160) v. Lakeview Clinic, Ltd., (A13-2152), (A13-2160).
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The district court has broad discretion in determining jury instructions and [appellate courts] will not reverse in the absence of abuse of discretion.” Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc.
- Express Diagnostics, Inc. v. Phamatech, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
Express Diagnostics, Inc. v. Phamatech, Inc.
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc., (“A fundamental principle of contract law is that .
- Donald R. Filler v. Soo Line Railroad Company d/b/a Canadian Pacific Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
Donald R. Filler v. Soo Line Railroad Company d/b/a Canadian Pacific
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
5 I. “The district court has broad discretion in determining jury instructions and we will not reverse in the absence of abuse of discretion.” Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc.
- State v. Hayes 831 N.W.2d 546 Minn. 2013
-
State v. Hayes
831 N.W.2d 546
Minn. 2013
“The district court has broad discretion in determining jury instructions, and we will not reverse where jury instructions ‘overall fairly and correctly state the applicable law.’ ” (quoting Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc., ).
- State v. Kjeseth 828 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
-
State v. Kjeseth
828 N.W.2d 480
Minn. Ct. App. 2013
ANALYSIS I. “The district court has broad discretion in determining jury instructions and we will not reverse in the absence of abuse of discretion.” Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc.
- State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
-
State v. Hokanson
821 N.W.2d 340
Minn. 2012
“The district court has broad discretion in determining jury instructions, and we will not reverse where jury instructions ‘overall fairly and correctly state the applicable law.’ ” (quoting Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc., ).
- Ram Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rohde 820 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
-
Ram Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rohde
820 N.W.2d 1
Minn. 2012
See Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc.
- Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
-
Daly v. McFarland
812 N.W.2d 113
Minn. 2012
Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc.
- City of Moorhead v. Red River Valley Cooperative Power Ass'n 811 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
-
City of Moorhead v. Red River Valley Cooperative Power Ass'n
811 N.W.2d 151
Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc.
- Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
-
Domagala v. Rolland
805 N.W.2d 14
Minn. 2011
See also Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc., (stating that jury instructions must be *30 read in context as a whole); Lieberman v. Korsh, 264 Minn. 234, 240 , (“[A]n appellate court should view the instructions as far as possible from the standpoint of the total impact or impression upon the jury.
- Engquist v. Loyas 803 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2011
-
Engquist v. Loyas
803 N.W.2d 400
Minn. 2011
(citing Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc., ).
- Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 788 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp.
788 N.W.2d 770
Minn. Ct. App. 2010
But “[a]n instruction that is so misleading that it renders incorrect the instruction as a whole will be reversible error.” Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc., -48 (Minn.2002) (concluding that jury instruction, considered as a whole, was not error because “in the context of employment terminations, ‘good cause,’ ‘just cause,’ and ‘cause’ are interchangeable”).
- DOMAGALA v. Rolland 787 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-
DOMAGALA v. Rolland
787 N.W.2d 662
Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“The district court has broad discretion in determining jury instructions and [appellate courts] will not reverse in the absence of abuse of discretion.” Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc.
- 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
Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc.
- Stewart v. Koenig 783 N.W.2d 164 Minn. 2010
-
Stewart v. Koenig
783 N.W.2d 164
Minn. 2010
The district court has broad discretion in determining jury instructions, and we will not reverse where jury instructions “overall fairly and correctly state the applicable law.” Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc.
- Witzke v. Mesabi Rehabilitation Services, Inc. 768 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-
Witzke v. Mesabi Rehabilitation Services, Inc.
768 N.W.2d 127
Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc., , 147 n. 8 (Minn.2002).
- All Parks Alliance for Change v. Uniprop Manufactured Housing Communities Income Fund 732 N.W.2d 189 Minn. 2007
-
All Parks Alliance for Change v. Uniprop Manufactured Housing Communities Income Fund
732 N.W.2d 189
Minn. 2007
See, e.g., Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc., , 147 n. 8 (Minn.2002); Davies & Davies Agency, , 131 n. 1 (Minn.1980).
- River Valley Truck Center, Inc. v. Interstate Companies 704 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 2005
- Heine v. Simon 702 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 2005
- Rowe v. Munye 702 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 2005
-
Rowe v. Munye
702 N.W.2d 729
Minn. 2005
Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc.
- Heine v. Simon 702 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 2005
- Bolander v. Bolander 703 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
-
Bolander v. Bolander
703 N.W.2d 529
Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc.
- State v. Sanchez-Diaz 683 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2004