Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Myers v. Hearth Technologies, Inc., 621 N.W.2d 787.

35 citing documents.

Ty Bernard, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
10 Because the district court has broad discretion in its remittitur decision, Myers v. Hearth Techs., Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Lana Waldron, as successor Trustee of the Pick Family Trust dated December 11, 2013 v. Marilyn A Stenzel, … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Lana Waldron, as successor Trustee of the Pick Family Trust dated December 11, 2013 v. Marilyn A Stenzel, … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Ass’n, -73 (Minn. 2014) (concluding that rule 52.01 is inapplicable to a case tried by jury); Myers v. Hearth Techs., Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Tal Sarusi individually and d/b/a Sealed Envelope LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
On appeal, we view the evidence “as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict.” Myers v. Hearth Techs., Inc., (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Twin City Underwriters, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In Myers v. Hearth Technologies, Inc., this court held that “the trial court’s failure to explain its reasons for its 18 decision on the motion for new trial on damages or for remittitur does not require us to alter our standard of review or remand.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Acuity, A Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Inc. , (quotati on omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Judith Barnes, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Myers v. Hearth Techs., Inc., d 787, 792 (Minn. App. 2001), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Goldmount Veterinary Center, P.A., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Myers v. Hearth Techs., Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
SRRT Properties, LP, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Myers v. Hearth Techs., Inc., review denied (Minn. Mar.
Waymouth Farms, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Myers v. Hearth Techs., Inc., (emphasis added) (citation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.
W. J. A., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
And the weighing of probative value versus prejudice is soundly within the discretion of the district court, and “in close cases the court may properly exercise its discretion in favor of allowing relevant evidence.” Myers v. Hearth Techs ., Inc.
Herbert B. Fick, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Inc. , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Aaron Larson v. BNSF Railway Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Aaron Larson v. BNSF Railway Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[T]he assessment of damages is the peculiar province of the jury.” Myers v. Hearth Techs., Inc., (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.
The Original Bobble Babes, LLC v. Dedicated Logistics, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The Original Bobble Babes, LLC v. Dedicated Logistics, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We “assume the [fact finder] disbelieved any testimony in conflict with the result it reached.” Myers v. Hearth Techs., Inc., d 787, 791 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Seagate Technology, LLC v. Western Digital Corporation, Sining Mao Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Seagate Technology, LLC v. Western Digital Corporation, Sining Mao Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Myers v. Hearth Techs., Inc., review denied (Minn. Mar.
Arthur Allen Hogenson v. Michael W. Hogenson 852 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Arthur Allen Hogenson v. Michael W. Hogenson 852 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
damages into time-of- verdict damages.” Lienhard, d at 865; see also Myers v. Hearth Technologies, Inc., review denied (Minn. Mar.
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company v. Historic Ivy Tower, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company v. Historic Ivy Tower, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
section 549.09 was amended to allow pre-verdict interest irrespective of a defendant’s ability to ascertain the amount of damages for which he might be held liable.” d 861, 865 (Minn. 1988); see Skifstrom, d at 296–97 (following Lienhard); see also Myers v. Hearth Techs., Inc., (following Lienhard and Skifstrom), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Gieseke ex rel. Diversified Water Diversion, Inc. v. IDCA, Inc. 826 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Gieseke ex rel. Diversified Water Diversion, Inc. v. IDCA, Inc. 826 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
See Verhel, d at 592 (“[T]he assessment of damages is the peculiar province of the jury.” (quotation omitted)); see also Myers v. Hearth Techs., Inc., (noting that, even though damages were “large compared to the severity of a plaintiffs injuries, the assessment of damages is the peculiar province of the jury” (quotation omitted)).
Dunn v. National Beverage Corp. 729 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Dunn v. National Beverage Corp. 729 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
See Pine Valley Meats, (stating that trial court determined that party had no standing to assert claim when it had assigned its rights under contract to another), abrogated on other grounds by Myers v. Hearth Tech., Inc., review denied (Minn. Mar.
Custody of the Child of Williams v. Carlson 701 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Custody of the Child of Williams v. Carlson 701 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Myers v. Hearth Techs., Inc., review denied (Minn. Mar.
Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc. 681 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc. 681 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
See Myers v. Hearth Techs., Inc., review denied (Minn. Mar.
Heine v. Simon 674 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Heine v. Simon 674 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Myers v. Hearth Techs., Inc., review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Harris 667 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 2003
In Re the Civil Commitment of Ramey 648 N.W.2d 260 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re the Civil Commitment of Ramey 648 N.W.2d 260 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Myers v. Hearth Techs., Inc., review denied (Minn. Mar.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by