Cited by

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

67 citing documents.

Jensen v. Hercules, Inc. 524 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
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.
LeDoux v. Northwest Publishing, Inc. 521 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
LeDoux v. Northwest Publishing, Inc. 521 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
We will not disturb a damage award “unless its failure to do so would be shocking or would result in plain injustice.”
Hanks v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. 493 N.W.2d 302 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Hanks v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. 493 N.W.2d 302 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
A reviewing court will not interfere with a jury’s award of damages “unless its failure to do so would be shocking or would result in plain injustice.” Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc.
Dang v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center, Inc. 490 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Dang v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center, Inc. 490 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
A jury’s award of damages will not be interfered with “unless * * * failure to do so would be shocking or would result in plain injustice.” Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc.
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 Hughes v. Sinclair Marketing, Inc.
Dallum v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc. 462 N.W.2d 608 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Dallum v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc. 462 N.W.2d 608 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Hughes v. Sinclair Marketing, Inc., (citations omitted); see also Northern Petrochemical Co. v. United States Fire Ins.
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Short 448 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Short 448 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Hughes v. Sinclair Marketing, Inc.
ESTATE OF JONES BY BLUME v. Kvamme 430 N.W.2d 188 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
ESTATE OF JONES BY BLUME v. Kvamme 430 N.W.2d 188 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In Hughes v. Sinclair Marketing, Inc., the court affirmed an award of lost future profits, stating: The purpose behind limiting damages for common law misrepresentation to out-of-pocket loss is to avoid speculative damages and assure that the award is measured by the natural and proximate loss sustained by the defrauded party.
Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co. 401 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co. 401 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
aff'd in part, rev’d in part