Cited by

The supreme court has held that “Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 59.01 establishes the causes for which a court may grant a new trial and limits the grounds for a new trial to those causes.” Clifford v. Geritom Med, Inc.

See Clifford v. Geritom Med, Inc., (“[A] motion for a new trial gives a district court the opportunity to correct errors without subjecting the parties to the expense and inconvenience associated with an appeal.”).

Inc., (quotation omitted).

Clifford v. Geritom Med., Inc.

When considering whether the evidence justifies the verdict, we consider “whether the verdict is so contrary to the preponderance of the evidence as to imply that the jury failed to consider all the evidence, or acted under some mistake.” Clifford v. Geritom Med, Inc., (quotation omitted).

Inc., (quotation omitted).

(remanding for new trial where jury found negligence but no causation and district court gave conflicting standard-of-care instructions which “analytically and practically” impacted causation analysis); Clifford v. Geritom Med., Inc., (concluding that district court properly granted new trial where the wording of jury verdict was unclear and negligence and causation findings for two defendants were inconsistent).

6 We so conclude mindful that, in determining whether a verdict is justified by the evidence, a district court exercises “the broadest possible discretionary power.” Clifford v. Geritom Med, Inc., (quotation omitted).

In determining whether a verdict is justified by the evidence, a district court is vested with “the broadest possible discretionary power.” Clifford v. Geritom Med, Inc., (quotation omitted).

See Clifford v. Geritom Med, Inc. , (noting that the new -trial standard is a demanding standard, though it is less rigorous than the standard for granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict).

Clifford v. Geritom Med., Inc.

While this is a “less rigorous” standard than granting judgment as a matter of law, it is still “a demanding standard.” Clifford v. Geritom Med., Inc.

Inc., (quotation omitted).

We generally defer to the district court’s denial of a new trial on the grounds that the evidence justifies the verdict because “[a] district court is in a better position than an appellate court to assess whether the evidence justifies the verdict.” Clifford v. Geritom Med, Inc., d 680, 687 (Minn. 2004).

“Whether the verdict is justified by the evidence presents a factual question and the district court may properly weigh the evidence.” Clifford v. Geritom MED, Inc.

Clifford v. Geritom Med., Inc. , , 687 (Minn. 2004).

Clifford v. Geritom Med, Inc., d 680, 687 (Minn. 2004).

See Clifford v. Geritom Med, Inc., (“[A] motion for a new trial gives a district court the opportunity to correct errors without subjecting the parties to the expense and inconvenience associated with an appeal.”).

See Clifford v. Geritom Med, Inc., (noting that the new-trial standard is a demanding standard, though it is less rigorous than the standard for granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict).

Clifford v. Geritom Med, Inc., -87 (Minn.2004) (quotation omitted); see Minn. R. Civ.

Inc., ); cf. Sorlie v. Thomas, 235 Minn. 509, 511-12 , (noting that while a claim of undue influence must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, the heightened standard “does not change the rule by which the verdict is to be tested either by a court of review or by a trial cour

The standard that applies to a motion for JNOV is that the evidence must be “so overwhelming on one side that reasonable minds cannot differ as to the proper outcome.” Clifford v. Geritom Med, Inc.