Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 20 N.W. 87.

39 citing documents.

State v. Barnes 81 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1957
State v. Barnes 81 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1957
8 Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co. 32 Minn. 217, 220 , , .
Maas v. Midway Chevrolet Co. 18 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1945
Maas v. Midway Chevrolet Co. 18 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1945
with approval in Litman v. Walso, 211 Minn. 398, 402 , 1 N. W. [2d] 391, 393), the general rule is that: “* * * in any case, whether a new trial upon the ground of excessive or inadequate damages should be granted or refused, or whether the verdict should be reduced, rests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial court (Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , ; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , , ), in reviewing which' this court will be guided by the general rule applicable to other ■ discr
High v. Supreme Lodge of the World 7 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 1943
High v. Supreme Lodge of the World 7 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 1943
Litman v. Walso 1 N.W.2d 391 Minn. 1941
Litman v. Walso 1 N.W.2d 391 Minn. 1941
* * * “But in any case, whether a new trial upon the ground of excessive or inadequate damages should be granted or refused, or whether the verdict should be reduced, rests in the sound judicial *403 discretion of the trial court (Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , ; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , , ), in reviewing which this court will be guided by the general rule applicable to other discretionary orders.” Under this rule, though the damages awarded are meager, we see no abuse of discre
Ross v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 290 N.W. 566 Minn. 1940
Ott v. Tri-State Telephone & Telegraph Co. 149 N.W. 544 Minn. 1914
Ott v. Tri-State Telephone & Telegraph Co. 149 N.W. 544 Minn. 1914
Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co. 32 Minn. 217 , , ; Nelson v. Village of West Duluth, 55 Minn. 497 , ; Halness v. Anderson, 110 Minn. 204 , .
Beek v. Nelson 147 N.W. 668 Minn. 1914
Beek v. Nelson 147 N.W. 668 Minn. 1914
380 ; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co. 32 Minn. 217, 223 , , .
Bock v. Sauk Center Grocery Co. 110 N.W. 257 Minn. 1907
Bock v. Sauk Center Grocery Co. 110 N.W. 257 Minn. 1907
La Crosse & M. Packet Co. v. Reynolds, 12 Minn. 135 (213); Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , , ; Briggs v. Shea, 48 Minn. 218 , .
McKnight v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 105 N.W. 673 Minn. 1905
McKnight v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 105 N.W. 673 Minn. 1905
Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , ; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , , ; Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , .
English v. Minneapolis & St. Paul Suburban Railway Co. 104 N.W. 886 Minn. 1905
English v. Minneapolis & St. Paul Suburban Railway Co. 104 N.W. 886 Minn. 1905
Mohr v. Williams, supra; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , .
Mohr v. Williams 104 N.W. 12 Minn. 1905
Mohr v. Williams 104 N.W. 12 Minn. 1905
But in any case, whether a new trial upon the ground of excessive *267 or inadequate damages should be granted or refused, or whether the verdict should be reduced, rests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial court (Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , ; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , , ), in reviewing which this court will be guided by the general rule applicable to other discretionary orders.
United States Investment Corp. v. Ulrickson 86 N.W. 613 Minn. 1901
United States Investment Corp. v. Ulrickson 86 N.W. 613 Minn. 1901
Briggs v. Shea, 48 Minn. 218 , , and Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , , .
State v. Shippman 86 N.W. 431 Minn. 1901
Blume v. Scheer 86 N.W. 446 Minn. 1901
State v. Shippman 86 N.W. 431 Minn. 1901
Stroebel v. Whitney, 31 Minn. 384 , ; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , , ; Nord v. Gray, 80 Minn. 143 , .
Blume v. Scheer 86 N.W. 446 Minn. 1901
This distinction was not overlooked in one of our leading cases on this matter (Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , , ), wherein it was held, when speaking of subdivision 4, that, to warrant an order for a new trial upon the ground of excessive damages in an action for defamation of character, they must not be merely more than the court would have awarded if it had tried the case, but the amount awarded s
Sharpe v. Larson 70 N.W. 1 Minn. 1897
Sharpe v. Larson 70 N.W. 1 Minn. 1897
& L. 26; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , , and .
Loveland v. Cooley 61 N.W. 138 Minn. 1894
Loveland v. Cooley 61 N.W. 138 Minn. 1894
See Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , ( , and .)
State Sash & Door Manufacturing Co. v. Adams 50 N.W. 360 Minn. 1891
State Sash & Door Manufacturing Co. v. Adams 50 N.W. 360 Minn. 1891
455 ;) Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , ( 18 N. W. Rep.
Dennis v. Johnson 44 N.W. 68 Minn. 1890
Dennis v. Johnson 44 N.W. 68 Minn. 1890
The principles by which trial courts should be controlled in considering whether a verdict in such a case should be set aside upon the ground that it is excessive have been set forth in Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , ( 18 N. W. Rep.
Pratt v. Pioneer-Press Co. 28 N.W. 708 Minn. 1886
Pratt v. Pioneer-Press Co. 28 N.W. 708 Minn. 1886
When this case was here on a former appeal, ( 32 Minn. 217 ; 18 N. W. Rep.
Woodward v. Glidden 22 N.W. 127 Minn. 1885
Woodward v. Glidden 22 N.W. 127 Minn. 1885
Berry, J. In Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , we have recently had occasion to consider the principles by which the district courts should be governed in passing upon applications for new trials upon the ground of excessive damages, and also the' principles by which this court should be governed in reviewing orders of the district courts granting or refusing ne