DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Johnson v. Ramsey County, 424 N.W.2d 800.

30 citing documents.

  • Larry Walters, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    “To establish a prima facie case for a Schwartz hearing, the movant must submit sufficient evidence which, standing alone and unchallenged, would warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
  • Megan Guetzkow, as mother and natural guardian of E.I., a minor, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    hich includes real -estate properties, and that he is “by all accounts, able-bodied and retains the ability to fully participate in the workforce once he is released from confinement.” Irgens argues that these findings are clearly erroneous because t hey are not based on any evidence about his financial condition, which Guetzkow had the burden to prove, citing to Johnson v. Ramsey County , review denied (Minn. Aug.
  • Kaytee Hooser v. Keith Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Kaytee Hooser v. Keith Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    (concluding that testimony from witnesses and caregivers about a plaintiff’s distress is sufficient to support jury’s award of damages), review denied (Minn. Aug.
  • Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. 817 N.W.2d 189 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. 817 N.W.2d 189 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    (citations and quotations omitted); (“A trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous if they are without substantial evidentiary support or are induced by an erroneous view of the law.”), review denied (Minn. Aug.
  • Lickteig v. Kolar 782 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 2010
  • Lickteig v. Kolar 782 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 2010
    Brett, d at 203 (citing Smith v. Hubbard, 253 Minn. 215, 225 , rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
  • Stengel v. East Side Beverage 690 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • Stengel v. East Side Beverage 690 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    To the contrary, the central question is not whether the employee was injured merely while at his or her employment, but whether the injury occurred because the employee was at the job “in touch with associations and conditions inseparable from it.” (holding that a kiss had no association with or to the job) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Aug.
  • Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    A Schwartz hearing is mandated when the evidence, “standing alone and unchallenged, would warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.” (Minn.App.
  • Brett v. Watts 601 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • Brett v. Watts 601 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    See, e.g., Smith v. Hubbard, 253 Minn. 215, 225 , (plaintiff who demonstrated mental harm as a result of kidding by coworkers about defendant’s battery was entitled to monetary damages); (once plaintiff proves battery, plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for humiliation and mental suffering, even though elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress not met).
  • Wicken v. Morris 527 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1995
  • Wicken v. Morris 527 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1995
    See, (personal duty not to batter employees), pet.
  • Wicken v. Morris 510 N.W.2d 246 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Wicken v. Morris 510 N.W.2d 246 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    1989) (duty to drive safely); (duty not to batter an employee), pet.
  • Giuliani v. Stuart Corp. 512 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Giuliani v. Stuart Corp. 512 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    Clearly erroneous means “without substantial evidentiary support or * * * induced by an erroneous view of the law.” (citing Anda Constr.
  • Fore v. Health Dimensions, Inc. 509 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • Fore v. Health Dimensions, Inc. 509 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • Fernandez v. Ramsey County 495 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • Fernandez v. Ramsey County 495 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    A case relied on by Fernandez, pet.
  • Mrozka v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Mpls. 482 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • Mrozka v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Mpls. 482 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    -08 (Minn.App.1988) (the trial court did not err in ordering remittitur where court but not jury had evidence of the defendant’s ability to pay), pet.
  • GN Danavox, Inc. v. Starkey Laboratories, Inc. 476 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • GN Danavox, Inc. v. Starkey Laboratories, Inc. 476 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    -08 (Minn.App.1988) (trial court’s remittitur of $300,000 punitive damage award to $50,000 upheld where jury was provided no specific information on defendant’s ability to pay), pet.
  • Ridler v. Olivia Public School System No. 653 432 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Ridler v. Olivia Public School System No. 653 432 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    See State by Roberts v. Sports & Health Club, Inc., (this court assumed that the male plaintiff had proven a prima facie case, and membership in a protected class was not at issue, and held that the employer had legitimate non-pretextual reasons for not hiring plaintiff); (this court recognized that the male employee’s membership in a protected group was the first element of his prima facie claim of sexual harassment under the MHRA, chapter 363).