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 v. Maple Grove Hospital, Premier OBGYN … 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 v. Pipestone, LLC, et al., JJKEL Lodges, LLC, et al 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.