9 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2004 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Mathews v. Millsgreen2 sentences2004Van Guilder also argues that it was the burden of National Freight and New Prime to prove which of these impacts was the source of his injuries. “[I]n a multiple-impact situation, the burden of proving that the harm can be separated falls on [the party] who contend[s] that it can be apportioned.” Mathews v. Mills, 288 Minn. 16, 22 , 178 N.W.2d 841, 845 (1970). 2004Van Guilder also argues that it was the burden of National Freight and New Prime to prove which of these impacts was the source of his injuries. “[I]n a multiple-impact situation, the burden of proving that the harm can be separated falls on [the party] who contend[s] that it can be apportioned.” Mathews v. Mills, 288 Minn. 16, 22 , 178 N.W.2d 841, 845 (1970). | 1 | 1 |
Seidl v. Trollhaugen, Inc.green2 sentences1992Seidl v. Trollhaugen, Inc., 305 Minn. 506, 507 , 232 N.W.2d 236, 239 (1975). 1992Seidl v. Trollhaugen, Inc., 305 Minn. 506, 507 , 232 N.W.2d 236, 239 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hagengreen1 sentence1989State v. Hagen, 382 N.W.2d 556, 558 (Minn.Ct.App.1986); see also Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 103.04. | 1 | 1 |
Gertken v. Farmers Elevator of Kensington, Minnesota, Inc.green1 sentence1989Gertken v. Farmers Elevator of Kensington, Minnesota, Inc., 411 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Minn.Ct.App.1987), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 28, 1987). | 1 | 1 |
Sandhofer v. Abbott-Northwestern Hospitalgreen1 sentence1985Unless the evidence is practically conclusive against the verdict, [the appellate court] will not set the verdict aside.” Sandhofer v. Abbott-Northwestern Hospital, 283 N.W.2d 362, 365 (Minn.1979). | 1 | 1 |
Conover v. Northern States Power Co.green1 sentence1985The standard to be applied in determining the propriety of granting a motion for JNOV is “whether there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict.” Conover v. Northern States Power Co., 313 N.W.2d 397, 401 (Minn.1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kantorowicz v. VFW Post, No. 230
green
2 sentences1985Kantorowicz v. VFW Post, No. 230, 349 N.W.2d 597 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). 1985Newmaster v. Mahmood, 361 N.W.2d 130 (Minn.Ct.App.1985); citing Kantorowicz v. VFW Post, No. 230, 349 N.W.2d 597 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). | 2 | 1985–1985 |
Welle v. Prozinski
green
1 sentence2002Id. at 914-16 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Newmaster v. Mahmood
green
1 sentence1985Newmaster v. Mahmood, 361 N.W.2d 130 (Minn.Ct.App.1985); citing Kantorowicz v. VFW Post, No. 230, 349 N.W.2d 597 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.