Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Engineering Co., 401 N.W.2d 655.

143 citing documents.

Wertish v. Salvhus 555 N.W.2d 26 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Wertish v. Salvhus 555 N.W.2d 26 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Eng’g Co.
Franklin v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 558 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Cf. Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Eng’g Co., (stating that reviewing court will not reverse a trial court’s award of denial of attorneys’ fees absent abuse of discretion); Shepard v. City of St.
Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc. 544 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc. 544 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Eng’g Co.
Richie v. Paramount Pictures Corp. 544 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1996
Richie v. Paramount Pictures Corp. 544 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1996
See Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Engineering Co.
Marriage of Kornberg v. Kornberg 542 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 1996
Marriage of Kornberg v. Kornberg 542 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 1996
Richie v. Paramount Pictures Corp. 532 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Richie v. Paramount Pictures Corp. 532 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Eng’g, (rejecting proposed rule requiring plaintiff to substantiate harm to reputation before being allowed re *240 covery).
Marriage of Kornberg v. Kornberg 525 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Sazama Excavating, Inc. v. Wausau Insurance Companies 521 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Sazama Excavating, Inc. v. Wausau Insurance Companies 521 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Eng’g
Imperial Developers, Inc. v. Seaboard Surety Co. 518 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Imperial Developers, Inc. v. Seaboard Surety Co. 518 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Engineering Co., (false statements about a person’s business, trade, or professional conduct are defamatory per se).
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Alpine Air Products, Inc. 490 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Alpine Air Products, Inc. 490 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Eng’g Co.
Pedro v. Pedro 489 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Pedro v. Pedro 489 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Eng’g Co., (appellate court will not reverse trial court’s award or denial of attorney fees absent abuse of discretion).
Kirsebom v. Connelly 486 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Kirsebom v. Connelly 486 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Eng’g Co.
Bucko v. First Minnesota Savings Bank 471 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1991
Bucko v. First Minnesota Savings Bank 471 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1991
See Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Engineering Co.
Pathmanathan v. St. Cloud State University 461 N.W.2d 726 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Pathmanathan v. St. Cloud State University 461 N.W.2d 726 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Engineering Co.
Swanlund v. Shimano Indus. Corp., Ltd. 459 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Matter of Gonzalez 456 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Apache Plaza, Ltd. v. Midwest Savings Ass'n 456 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Matter of Gonzalez 456 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Engineering Co.
Halla Nursery, Inc. v. Baumann-Furrie & Co. 454 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1990
Halla Nursery, Inc. v. Baumann-Furrie & Co. 454 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1990
Halla argues that in this case the omission of the jury instruction can be deemed an error of fundamental law or controlling principle even though it was not noted at trial, citing as authority our recent decision in Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Eng’g Co.
Foley v. WCCO Television, Inc. 449 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Northway v. Whiting 436 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Northway v. Whiting 436 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Engineering Co.
Lim v. Interstate System Steel Division, Inc. 435 N.W.2d 830 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Lim v. Interstate System Steel Division, Inc. 435 N.W.2d 830 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Shoop 429 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Shoop 429 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Engineering Co., (new trial granted in civil case where trial court failed to give requested instruction on standard of proof of punitive damages); see also State Bank of Hamburg v. Stoeckmann, 417N.W.2d 113, 116 (Minn.Ct.App.1987), pet.
State v. Mosley 414 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Mosley 414 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Engineering Co.
State v. Gettel 404 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Gettel 404 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The supreme court recently stated in Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Engineering Co., : When an issue is submitted to the jury on an erroneous instruction, a new trial should be granted unless it appears as a matter of law that the jury’s determination is correct.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by