Hardy v. Anderson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
Matson, Justice.
Defendant appeals from an order denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial.
Disappointing as it may be to an appellant, conflicts in evidence are to be resolved upon appeal by stating the controlling facts as the jury, in the light of the whole evidence, reasonably could and must have found them in arriving at its verdict. An appellate court cannot depart from this elementary rule even though it would have found the facts to be otherwise if it had tried the case de novo. We, therefore, state the facts in the light most favorable to the verdict.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State v. DeZelerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
- Nelson v. Twin City Motor Bus Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1953
- Orrvar v. MorganSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1933
- Smith v. BarrySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
- Bimberg v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Christy v. SalitermanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
- Boutang v. Twin City Motor Bus Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
- Connolly v. Nicollet HotelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Ferguson v. Northern States Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
- Thelen v. SpilmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.