Cited by

In concluding that Sommer’s alleged failure to account for the fact that Kedrow ski flew 312 hours before the crash is a question of weight, not of foundational reliability, we are mindful of “the line of distinction which separates the legitimate province of the [judge] from that of the [jury],” Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 434, 437 (1868), which is that “the role of resolving disputed facts belongs to the jury, not the court,” Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minn ., ; see also In re Sperl’s E

The conclusion reached was that ( 55 Minn. 500 , ) “the doctrine in Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 434 , ( Gil.

Consequently, the order cannot be sustained, even under the rule of Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 434 ( Gil.

Gileillan, C. J. The evidence in this case was not manifestly in favor of the verdict, so that the case comes within the rule in Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 434 ( Gil.

Buck, J. The action of the court below in granting a new trial was fairly within its discretion, and, following the rule laid down in Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 434 , ( Gil.

When the case comes under subdivision 4, the doctrine in Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 434 , ( Gil.

And we do not feel disposed tp depart from the rule laid down in Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 434 , ( Gil.

299 ;) Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 434, 440 , ( Gil.

But, even were the preponderance of the evidence the other way, it certainly could not be claimed to be so much so as to take the case out of the rule in Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 434 , ( Gil.

Upon this point the case of Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 434 , ( Gil.

The preponderance of the evidence produced upon the trial of this case, instead of being manifestly and palpably in favor of the verdict, which would have to be shown in order to warrant a reversal of the order appealed from, —Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 434 , ( Gil.

This court, in Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 434 , laid down the following rules •which would govern them 'in reviewing the action of a trial court in granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict was not justified by the evidence: We there stated that we would not be warranted in reversing an order of this kind, simply because, if the judge below had refused

The principles upon which this court proceeds in such cases are stated in Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 434 , which was followed and applied in Barron v. Paulson, 22 Minn. 36 .

For the reasons given in Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 434 , the opinion of a trial court upon a motion for a new trial upon this ground is entitled to great weight, and,- as remarked in that case, it is only when, upon a careful perusal of the testimony, and upon mature reflection, we feel satisfied that the preponderance of -the evidence is manifestly and palpably in favor

Referring to the views expressed by this court in Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 434 , upon the general question as to the manner in which appeals of this kind should be treated, we are of opinion that the order granting the new trial in the case at bar should be affirmed.