Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hughes v. Sinclair Marketing, Inc., 389 N.W.2d 194.

67 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc., d 875, 879 (Minn. App. 1985), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, d 194, 200 (Minn. 1986).
TestResources, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Generally, we will not disturb a damage award unless the ‘failure to do so would be shocking or would result in plain injustice.’” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., d 549, 555 (Minn. 2008) (quoting Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc., ).
A22-0545 A22-0547 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Generally, an appellate court “will not disturb a damage award unless the ‘failure to do so would be shocking or would result in plain injustice.’” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., d 549, 555 (Minn. 2008) (quoting Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc., ).
Joseph D. Roach, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Generally, we will not disturb a damage award unless the ‘failure to do so would be shocking or would result in plain injustice.’” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp ., (quoting Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc., ).
ARF, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
T he purpose of the out-of-pocket-loss rule is “to avoid speculative damages and assure that the award is measured by the natural and proximate loss sustained by the defrauded party.” Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., I nc.
In re Minnwest Bank Litigation Concerning Real Property in Otsego, Minnesota, Minnwest Bank v. RTB, LLC 873 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re Minnwest Bank Litigation Concerning Real Property in Otsego, Minnesota, Minnwest Bank v. RTB, LLC 873 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Generally, we will not disturb a damage award unless the ‘failure to do so would be shocking or would result in plain injustice.’” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., (quoting Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc., d 194, 199 (Minn. 1986)).
Marie Delores Green v. BMW of North America, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Marie Delores Green v. BMW of North America, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
a statute provides for an award of attorney fees, “[i]t would be inconsistent with the intent of the legislature, in providing for attorneys’ fees, to dilute a fee award by refusing to compensate an attorney for the time reasonably spent on appellate work defending a judgment.” Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg, Inc., aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds
Larson v. Lakeview Lofts, LLC 804 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Larson v. Lakeview Lofts, LLC 804 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
A reviewing court will not disturb a damage award “unless its failure to do so would be shocking or would result in plain injustice.” Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc.
Rooney v. Rooney 782 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Rooney v. Rooney 782 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
But if we do not expressly provide for an award of appellate fees by a district court, “an appellate court is the proper court to determine the propriety of an award of attorney fees on appeal.” Vern Reynolds Constr., (citing Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc., ), review denied (Minn. Dec.
In Re Margolis Revocable Trust 765 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Lorberbaum v. Huff 765 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re Margolis Revocable Trust 765 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc.
Lorberbaum v. Huff 765 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
We will not disturb a damage award on appeal “unless [our] failure to do so would be shocking or would result in plain injustice.” Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc.
Fontaine v. Steen 759 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Fontaine v. Steen 759 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Indeed, a reviewing court will not disturb a damage award “unless its failure to do so would be shocking or would result in plain injustice.” Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc.
Dunn v. National Beverage Corp. 745 N.W.2d 549 Minn. 2008
Dunn v. National Beverage Corp. 745 N.W.2d 549 Minn. 2008
Generally, we will not disturb a damage award unless the “failure to do so would be shocking or would result in plain injustice.” Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc.
Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Properties, Inc. 743 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2008
Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Properties, Inc. 743 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2008
The court of appeals relied on our precedent in Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc., in concluding that the district court by its silence denied RPC’s request.
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
Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc., (holding district court did not abuse its discretion in denying request for multiplier in award of attorney fees under franchise act).
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
ANALYSIS I. We “will sustain a jury verdict if it is possible to do so on any reasonable theory of the evidence.” Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc.
Thompson v. Hughart 664 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Thompson v. Hughart 664 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
The denial of a motion for JNOV must be affirmed if there is “any competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the verdict.” (quotation omitted); see also Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc., (holding that a jury verdict will be sustained on any reasonable theory based on the evidence).
VanLandschoot v. Walsh 660 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
VanLandschoot v. Walsh 660 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Said another way, a reviewing court will not disturb a damage award “unless its failure to do so would be shocking or would result in plain injustice.” Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc., (citations omitted).
Astleford Equipment Co. v. Navistar International Transportation Corp. 611 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Astleford Equipment Co. v. Navistar International Transportation Corp. 611 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See Hughes v. *43 Sinclair Mktg., Inc., (alleged errors in calculating future lost profits go to the weight of evidence not admissibility).
Russell v. Johnson 608 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Russell v. Johnson 608 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc., (holding jury verdict will be sustained on any reasonable theory based on evidence); Nihart v. Kruger, 291 Minn. 273, 276 , (holding reviewing court need only examine record to determine whether jury’s verdict is consistent on any theory).
Gopher Oil Co. v. American Hardware Mutual Insurance Co. 588 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Gopher Oil Co. v. American Hardware Mutual Insurance Co. 588 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
The district court did not misstate the law in instructing the jury on “actual injury.” IV Adequacy of Evidence to Support Jury Verdict on Expected or Intended Injuries A jury’s special verdict form answers can be set aside “only if no reasonable mind could find as did the jury.” Domtar, d at 734 (citation omitted); see Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc., (jury verdict will be sustained on any reasonable theory based on the evidence).
Johns v. Harborage I, Ltd. 585 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Johns v. Harborage I, Ltd. 585 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
A reviewing court will not disturb a damage award- “unless its failure to do so would be shocking or would result in plain injustice.” Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc.
Zitzow v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 568 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Zitzow v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 568 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
A reviewing court will not disturb a damage award “unless its failure to do so would be shocking or would result in plain injustice.” Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc.
Franklin v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 558 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Franklin v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 558 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc., affd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds
Barrera v. Muir 553 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Barrera v. Muir 553 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
An appellate court “will sustain a jury verdict if it is possible to do so on any reasonable theory of evidence.” Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc.
Vern Reynolds Construction, Inc. v. City of Champlin 539 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Vern Reynolds Construction, Inc. v. City of Champlin 539 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc.
Johnson v. City of Shorewood 531 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Johnson v. City of Shorewood 531 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Compare Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc., (in Franchise Act suits, better practice is for appellate courts themselves to determine appropriate attorney fees for appeals portion of lawsuit) with Federated Mut.
Jensen v. Hercules, Inc. 524 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 1994