C5-82-1438 Precedential Processed

Hanson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad

Minnesota Supreme Court · Filed March 16, 1984 · 345 N.W.2d 736

Cited by

Ty Bernard, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Tal Sarusi individually and d/b/a Sealed Envelope LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Twin City Underwriters, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Goldmount Veterinary Center, P.A., Respondent, 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.