Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc., 463 N.W.2d 722.

69 citing documents.

State of MN, County of Lac qui Parle, Petitioner Below, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See, e.g., Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc., -29 (Minn. 1990) (affirming district court because its decision was correct despite its reliance on inapplicable statute); see also Minn. R. Civ.
OCH Bookstore, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(quoting Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc., ).
Matthew Davies, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Ass’n, (quoting Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc., ).
Oehlerts & Sons Construction, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Melrose Gates, see also Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc., (stating that a district court’s judgment after a bench-trial verdict is reviewed for errors in its conclusions of law).
International Fluid Power, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
16 trial “by failing to demand one and failing to pay the requisite jury fee.” Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc., -29 (Minn. 1990).8 However, rule 38.02 was amended, and the rule now states that “[n]either the failure to file any document requesting a jury trial nor the failure to pay a jury fee shall be deemed a waiver of the right to a jury trial.” Minn. R. Civ.
North Mill Equipment Finance, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc. , (indicating that failure to demand a jury trial constitutes a waiver of jury trial); 301 Clifton Place LLC v. 301 Clifton Place Condo.
Steven Brown, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In an appeal after a court trial, this court seeks to “determin[e] whether the court’s findings are clearly erroneous and whether it erred in its conclusions of law.” Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc.
Scott Raden, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Raden relies on Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc. , in which the Minnesota Supreme Court stated in a negligence case that when the evidence only allows the trier of fact to do no more than guess as to which of several acts was, in fact, the cause of the injury, the plaintiff has failed to prove negligence.
In re the Non-Probate Estate of: Robert W. Fashant, Decedent Merilee Doll v. Julie A. Haekenkamp, and KleinBank Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Non-Probate Estate of: Robert W. Fashant, Decedent Merilee Doll v. Julie A. Haekenkamp, and KleinBank Minn. Ct. App. 2016
P. 52.01; Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc.
Karla Coltrain v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Karla Coltrain v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc., (requiring circumstantial evidence to be strong enough to allow “reasonable minds .
David Charles Widmer v. Dallas Jacob Albertson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
David Charles Widmer v. Dallas Jacob Albertson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
at 244, d at 835; see also Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc., (“Where the evidence is such that a trier of fact can do no more than guess .
Paul J. Krause v. City of Elk River Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Paul J. Krause v. City of Elk River Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc., Craft Tool & Imdieke v. Blenda–Life, Inc., review denied (Minn. Apr.
Kenneth A. Roseland, Law Offices of Richard E. Bosse, Chartered v. Joseph A. Wentzell, Attorney at Law, Richard … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kenneth A. Roseland, Law Offices of Richard E. Bosse, Chartered v. Joseph A. Wentzell, Attorney at Law, Richard … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Cf. Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc., (stating that “[appellate courts] will not reverse a correct decision simply because it is founded on incorrect reasons”).
Susanna D. Smith v. Wells Concrete Products Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Susanna D. Smith v. Wells Concrete Products Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
16 plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant’s breach caused the injury.” Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc.
David Greve v. Breezy Point International, Inc. d/b/a Breezy Point Resort Minn. Ct. App. 2014
David Greve v. Breezy Point International, Inc. d/b/a Breezy Point Resort Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Paul, see also Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc., (stating that “circumstantial evidence must be more than simply consistent with the plaintiff’s theory of causation; reasonable minds must be able to conclude from the circumstances that the theory adopted outweighs and preponderates over opposing theories”).
Roberts v. Brunswick Corp. 783 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Roberts v. Brunswick Corp. 783 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
P. 52.01; see Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc., (applying clearly erroneous standard to trial without jury).
301 Clifton Place L.L.C. v. 301 Clifton Place Condominium Ass'n 783 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
301 Clifton Place L.L.C. v. 301 Clifton Place Condominium Ass'n 783 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The failure to make a timely demand for a jury also constitutes “an unequivocal act from which the waiver is a necessary inference.” Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc.
Busch v. Model Corp. 708 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Busch v. Model Corp. 708 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
On appeal from a judgment where no motion for a new trial was made, “appellate review is limited to examining whether the evidence supports the findings of fact and whether those findings support the conclusions of law.” Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc., (citation omitted).
Meyer v. Lindala 675 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Meyer v. Lindala 675 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Sc hweich v. Ziegler, Inc.
Woehrle v. City of Mankato 647 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Woehrle v. City of Mankato 647 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc.
Trigger's Supper Club v. Sunridge Farms, Inc. 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Shigellosis Litigation 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Trigger's Supper Club v. Sunridge Farms, Inc. 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc., -30 (Minn.1990) (holding evidence supported finding of negligence against seller who failed to inspect grab bar on tractor it sold); Erickson v .
In Re Shigellosis Litigation 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc., -30 (Minn.1990) (holding evidence supported finding of negligence against seller who failed to inspect grab bar on tractor it sold); -78 (Minn.App.1990), review denied (Minn. July 13, 1990) (holding evidence supported finding of negligence against a dealer who
Powell v. MVE Holdings, Inc. 626 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Powell v. MVE Holdings, Inc. 626 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Sandborg v. Blue Earth County 601 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Sandborg v. Blue Earth County 601 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc.
State v. Warren 592 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1999
State v. Warren 592 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1999
See Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc., reh’g denied, (Minn.1991) (concluding that newly discovered evidence which is cumulative, impeaching, or contradictory does not warrant a new trial).
Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson 583 N.W.2d 283 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson 583 N.W.2d 283 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc., (listing elements of negligence, including that "plaintiff did in fact suffer injury”).
Sunnarborg v. Howard 581 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Sunnarborg v. Howard 581 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc.
Anders v. Trester 562 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Anders v. Trester 562 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc.
Epland v. Meade Insurance Agency Associates, Inc. 564 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1997
Epland v. Meade Insurance Agency Associates, Inc. 564 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1997
Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc.