DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Roemer v. Martin, 440 N.W.2d 122.

23 citing documents.

  • Makenzie Moore, a minor, by and through her Conservator, First Fiduciary Corporation, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    “Concurring causes are direct causes which act contemporaneously or so nearly together that the chain of causation is not broken, and together cause an injury which would not have resulted in the absence of either one.” 123 n.1 (Minn. 1989); rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
  • Tiffany Hall, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    lained at length” in her JMOL arguments, “[her] presentation of direct evidence irrefutably establish[ed] each element of her claims.” On appeal from a denial of a motion for a new trial, an appella te court should not set aside a jury verdict unless it is “manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.” d 122, 124 (Minn. 1989) ( quotation omitted).
  • Curtis v. Klausler 802 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • Curtis v. Klausler 802 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    But, “[bjefore a particular factor can be said to be a concurrent cause, it must, first of all, be established that it is a cause.”
  • Norwest Bank Minnesota North, N.A. v. Beckler 663 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • Norwest Bank Minnesota North, N.A. v. Beckler 663 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    We will reverse a jury verdict only if it is “manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.” (quotation omitted).
  • Navarre v. South Washington County Schools 652 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2002
  • Navarre v. South Washington County Schools 652 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2002
    In regards to a motion for a new trial, we will not set aside a jury verdict on an appeal from a district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial “unless it is ‘manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.’ ” ().
  • 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
    This court must affirm the denial of a new-trial motion unless the verdict is “ ‘manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.’ ” ().
  • Myers v. Hearth Technologies, Inc. 621 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • Myers v. Hearth Technologies, Inc. 621 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    We will reverse a jury’s verdict only if it is “manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.” (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Hofer 614 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Hofer 614 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Raze v. Mueller 587 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1999
  • Raze v. Mueller 587 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1999
    (citation omitted); see also Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
  • State v. Jones 556 N.W.2d 903 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Jones 556 N.W.2d 903 Minn. 1996
    Given the deference we accord jury verdicts and our unwillingness to overturn them without significant justification, we believe that the identification procedure present in this case, though impermissibly suggestive, does not require the granting of a new trial.
  • Boubelik v. Liberty State Bank 553 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1996
  • Boubelik v. Liberty State Bank 527 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • Boubelik v. Liberty State Bank 527 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • Benson v. NORTHERN GOPHER ENTERPRISES 446 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Benson v. NORTHERN GOPHER ENTERPRISES 446 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    Alternatively stated, the evidence is sufficient unless the verdict it would produce is "manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence,” (quoting Vanderweyst v. Langford, 303 Minn. 575, 576 , ); or one reasonable minds could not reach, or is contradicted by evidence "practically conclusive against the verdict.” Bischer at 733 (quoting Seidl v. Trollhaugen, Inc.