Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Block v. Target Stores, Inc., 458 N.W.2d 705.

23 citing documents.

Criticized In the Matter of: Carole Anne Rosemary Dobson, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(citing Block v. Target Stores, Inc., -13 (Minn. App. 1990) (criticizing trial judg e for lengthy and sarcastic q uestioning of a witness especially because of the possibl e effect on the jury’s view of the case), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company as subrogee of Peter and Susan Fox, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
But a judge must avoid “assum[ing] the role of the advocate.” Block v. Target Stores, Inc. , review denied (Minn. Aug.
Sandra Williams v. Canterbury Inn Shakopee, LLC, d/b/a Americas Best Value Inn & Suites, d/b/a Arizonas Restaurant & … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Sandra Williams v. Canterbury Inn Shakopee, LLC, d/b/a Americas Best Value Inn & Suites, d/b/a Arizonas Restaurant & … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 705 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Renswick v. Wenzel 819 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Renswick v. Wenzel 819 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
The matter is generally one for the jury, and it is “only in the clearest of cases that the question of negligence becomes one of law.” Block v. Target Stores, Inc., review denied (Minn. Sept.
Continental Retail, LLC v. County of Hennepin 801 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 2011
Peterson v. 2004 Ford Crown Victoria Vin: 2FAHP74WX4X158445 792 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Peterson v. 2004 Ford Crown Victoria Vin: 2FAHP74WX4X158445 792 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Block v. Target Stores, Inc., review denied (Minn. Sept.
Van Guilder v. National Freight, Inc. 686 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Van Guilder v. National Freight, Inc. 686 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Block v. Target Stores, Inc., review denied (Minn. Sept.
In Re the Welfare of D.J.N. 568 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Criticized In Re the Welfare of D.J.N. 568 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See Block v. Target Stores, Inc., -13 (Minn.App.1990) (criticizing trial judge for lengthy and sarcastic questioning of a witness especially because of the possible effect on the jury’s view of the case), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Nugent v. Kerr 543 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Nugent v. Kerr 543 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Nugent also argues that she is entitled to a new trial on compensatory damages *692 because the verdict was tainted by judicial misconduct which “conveyed repugnancy towards her compensatory damages case to the jury” and consisted of “[sustained smiles exclusively aimed at [her] expert during direct examination and at her counsel’s summation.” See Block v. Target Stores, Inc., -13 (Minn.App.1990) (appellant entitled to new trial due to judge’s improper sarcastic and derogatory remarks to appella
State v. Plummer 511 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Plummer 511 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Block v. Target Stores, Inc., pet.
Pearson v. Henkemeyer 503 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Pearson v. Henkemeyer 503 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See Block v. Target Stores, Inc., , 711— 12 (Minn.App.1990) (evidence sufficient for jury to consider store’s negligence when customer injured while testing skateboard because there was evidence store knew or should have known customers were trying out skateboards in display area and store could have taken steps to prevent accident), pet.
State v. Jensen 482 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Jensen 482 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See Block v. Target Stores, Inc., -11 (Minn.App.1990), pet.
MT Properties, Inc. v. CMC Real Estate Corp. 481 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
MT Properties, Inc. v. CMC Real Estate Corp. 481 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
see also Block v. Target Stores, Inc., (if a claim is colorable, an assessment of fees will be reversed), pet.