DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rheiner v. Stillwater Street Railway & Transfer Co., 12 N.W. 449.

28 citing documents.

  • Neumann v. Anderson 916 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • Neumann v. Anderson 916 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    & Transfer Co. , 29 Minn. 147 , 150, 12 N.W.
  • Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1977
  • Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1977
    Rheiner v. Stillwater Street Railway and Transfer Co., 29 Minn. 147 , 12 N.W.
  • Joseph v. Haggen 254 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 1977
  • Joseph v. Haggen 254 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 1977
    & T. Co., 29 Minn. 147, 150 , 12 N.W.
  • Koenig v. Ludowese 243 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1976
  • Koenig v. Ludowese 243 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1976
    & T. Co. 29 Minn. 147
  • Heim v. Chapel 64 N.W. 825 Minn. 1895
  • Heim v. Chapel 64 N.W. 825 Minn. 1895
    The only question for our decision is whether the preponderance of the evidence is manifestly and palpably in favor of the verdict, so as to bring the case within the rule laid down in Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 398 (434); Rheiner v. Stillwater S. R. & T. Co., 29 Minn. 147 , ; and subsequent cases.
  • Crosby v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 26 N.W. 225 Minn. 1886
  • Crosby v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 26 N.W. 225 Minn. 1886
    Co., 29 Minn. 147 ; Fox v. Burke, 29 Minn. 171 ; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 30 Minn. 41 ; Wilcox v. Landberg, 30 Minn. 93 ; Young v. Davis, 30 Minn. 293 ; Carlson v. Small, 32 Minn. 439 ; Clapp v. Minn, & St.
  • Clark v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co. 25 N.W. 405 Minn. 1885
  • Clark v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co. 25 N.W. 405 Minn. 1885
    Co., 29 Minn. 147 , and other cases following those, the rule was recognized that an order of the trial court setting aside a verdict as against the evidence will not be reversed merely because there was evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict, nor unless the preponderance of evidence was manifestly and palpably in favor of
  • Jacobson v. Williams 24 N.W. 296 Minn. 1885
  • Jacobson v. Williams 24 N.W. 296 Minn. 1885
    & Transfer Co., 29 Minn. 147 , and which has been repeatedly reaffirmed and applied in this court.
  • Clapp v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. 21 N.W. 844 Minn. 1884
  • Clapp v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. 21 N.W. 844 Minn. 1884
    This was one of the statutory grounds on which the motion was made, and upon the record of the evidence on both sides we think the case is clearly within the rule laid down in Rheiner v. Stillwater, etc., Co., 29 Minn. 147 , in the application of which this court will not reverse the order of the trial court granting a new trial upon the evidence, (where it does not preponderate in favor of the verdict,) irrespective of the question whether there may or may not have been some evidence to support
  • Carlson v. Small 21 N.W. 480 Minn. 1884
  • Carlson v. Small 21 N.W. 480 Minn. 1884
    Co., 29 Minn. 147 , interfere with the order of the trial court granting a new trial.
  • Rheiner v. Union Depot, Street Railway & Transfer Co. 17 N.W. 623 Minn. 1883
  • Rheiner v. Union Depot, Street Railway & Transfer Co. 17 N.W. 623 Minn. 1883
  • Young v. Davis 15 N.W. 174 Minn. 1883
  • Young v. Davis 15 N.W. 174 Minn. 1883
    & Transfer Co., 29 Minn. 147 ; Fox v. Burke, Id.
  • Wilcox v. Landberg 14 N.W. 365 Minn. 1882
  • Wilcox v. Landberg 14 N.W. 365 Minn. 1882
    & Transfer Co., 29 Minn. 147 ; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., ante, p. 41.
  • Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co. 14 N.W. 62 Minn. 1882
  • Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co. 14 N.W. 62 Minn. 1882
    & Transfer Co., 29 Minn. 147 , we held “that we would not be warranted in reversing an order of this kind, simply because, if the judge below had refused to grant a new trial, we .should have felt bound to sustain him; nor because there was evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict; nor because, if the motion for a new trial had been mad