Hanson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad
Hanson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad, 345 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. 1984).
Cited by
- Ty Bernard v. Superset Tile & Stone, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- Tal Sarusi individually and d/b/a Sealed Envelope LLC, et al v. Todd Laughlin individually … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- Twin City Underwriters, Inc. v. Heppner Insurance Agency, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- Goldmount Veterinary Center, P.A. v. Watonwan County, Animal Humane Society Minn. Ct. App. 2022
- Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 788 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. 664 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- Koch v. Mork Clinic, P.A. 540 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
- Carlson v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. 527 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
- Hahn v. Tri-Line Farmers Co-Op 478 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Marynik v. Burlington Northern, Inc. 317 N.W.2d 347
- Tanski v. Jackson 130 N.W.2d 492
- Bowman v. Pamida, Inc. 261 N.W.2d 594
- Ahrenholz v. Hennepin County 295 N.W.2d 645
- Caspersen v. Webber 213 N.W.2d 327
Opinion text
TODD, Justice (dissenting). I would reverse the trial court. No reasons were articulated for granting the re-mittitur. This court should not speculate as to what motivated the trial judge. The verdict is well within the range of reasonable verdicts and therefore we should not interfere with the function of the jury. I further would not allow the “Liepelt instruction.” All the arguments used by the majority in disapproval of the “counter- Liepelt” instruction are applicable to the original instruction. The best procedure would prevent the use of both instructions. However, if one instruction is given, the other should also be given as a matter of fundamental fairness.