Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hauenstein v. Loctite Corp., 347 N.W.2d 272.

108 citing documents.

Sustainable 9, LLC d/b/a Sustainable 9 Design + Build, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Appellate courts must determine whether the jury’s findings “can be reconciled in any reasonable manner consistent with the evidence and its fair inferences.” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp ., (quotation omitted); (“If the answers to special verdict questions can be reconciled on any theory, the verdict will not be disturbed.”).
Liberte Construction, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
As the district court noted, “[t]he test is whether the answers can be reconciled in any reasonable manner consistent with the evidence and its fair inferences.” (“If the answers to special verdict questions can be reconciled on any theory, the verdict will not be disturbed.”).
Ammie Murphy, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
George, d at 7 (car -accident case also involving bad weather); (product-liability case about an adhesive that can cause blindness also involving a defective nozzle).
A p p e l l a n t s , Minn. 2020
See, (holding that a manufacturer’s duty to warn under a strict liability theory “extends to all reasonably foreseeable users”); Hansen v. City of St.
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 816 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2012
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 816 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2012
(“ As a practical matter, where the strict liability claim is based on ...
Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
“If the answers to special verdict questions can be reconciled on any theory, the verdict will not be disturbed.”
Dunn v. National Beverage Corp. 745 N.W.2d 549 Minn. 2008
Dunn v. National Beverage Corp. 745 N.W.2d 549 Minn. 2008
“If the answers to special verdict questions can be reconciled on any theory, the verdict will not be disturbed.”
George v. Estate of Baker 724 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2006
George v. Estate of Baker 724 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2006
We will not disturb a jury’s answer to special verdict questions if it can be reconciled on any theory, and will set aside a special verdict answer only if it is “perverse and palpably contrary to the evidence.”
Clifford v. Geritom Med, Inc. 681 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 2004
Clifford v. Geritom Med, Inc. 681 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 2004
Kissoondath v. United States Fire Insurance Co. 620 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Kissoondath v. United States Fire Insurance Co. 620 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Russell v. Johnson 608 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Russell v. Johnson 608 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Whiteford Ex Rel. Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp. 582 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1998
Whiteford Ex Rel. Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp. 582 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1998
(“[A] manufacturer’s duty to warn in strict liability cases extends to all reasonably foreseeable users.").
Marcon v. Kmart Corp. 573 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Marcon v. Kmart Corp. 573 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Kmart further argues that because it has been absolved of a negligent failure to warn, it cannot be held strictly liable for failure to warn.
Bigay v. Garvey 562 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Bigay v. Garvey 562 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Di Ma Corp. v. City of St. Cloud 562 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Di Ma Corp. v. City of St. Cloud 562 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co. 563 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 1997
Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co. 563 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 1997
Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co. 552 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co. 552 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In the context of the NSP analysis, it is evident that the supreme court intended this widely accepted definition and did not intend that the term “appreciable” be the equivalent of “substantial.” We may set aside an answer to a special verdict question “only if no reasonable mind could find as did the jury.”
International Financial Services, Inc. v. Franz 534 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1995
International Financial Services, Inc. v. Franz 534 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1995
Plate v. St. Mary's Help of Christians Church 520 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Plate v. St. Mary's Help of Christians Church 520 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Chapman Place Ass'n, Inc. v. Prokasky 507 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Chapman Place Ass'n, Inc. v. Prokasky 507 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
An appellate court will not set aside a jury’s answer to a special question unless “it is perverse and palpably contrary to the evidence.”
Krutsch v. Walter H. Collin GmBh Verfahrenstechnik Und Maschinenfabric 495 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Krutsch v. Walter H. Collin GmBh Verfahrenstechnik Und Maschinenfabric 495 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
“[A] manufacturer’s duty to warn in strict liability cases extends to all reasonably foreseeable users.”
Harmon Contract Glazing, Inc. v. Libby-Owens-Ford Co. 493 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Harmon Contract Glazing, Inc. v. Libby-Owens-Ford Co. 493 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Goodhue State Bank v. Luhman 490 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Goodhue State Bank v. Luhman 490 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Karnes v. Milo Beauty & Barber Supply Co., Inc., pet.
Covey v. Detroit Lakes Printing Co. 490 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Covey v. Detroit Lakes Printing Co. 490 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Tsudek v. Target Stores, Inc., pet.
FATHER a v. Moran 469 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
FATHER a v. Moran 469 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 461 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1990
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 461 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1990
Apache Plaza, Ltd. v. Midwest Savings Ass'n 456 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Apache Plaza, Ltd. v. Midwest Savings Ass'n 456 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(jury’s answer to special verdict question will not be set aside unless palpably contrary to the evidence).