WICKSTROM, BY WICKSTROM ET AL., CONSERVATORS OF THE PERSON AND ESTATE OF WICKSTROM

v.

MAPLEWOOD TOYOTA, INC., ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Browning-Ferris Indus. of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1989)
  …s the largest such judgment in the history of Vermont; there have been other substantial [*279] jury awards, however, in the State. See, e. g., Coty v. Ramsey Associates, Inc., 149 Vt. 451, 546 A. 2d 196 ($380,000 in punitive damages), cert. denied, 487 U. S. 1236 (1988). We have never held expressly that the Seventh Amendment allows appellate review of a district court’s denial of a motion to set aside an award as excessive. Although we granted certiorari in two cases in order to consider the issue, in both…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Anne Duffy Pokorny v. Ford Motor Co., 902 F.2d 1116 (3d Cir. 1990)
  …ress pre-emption— Cox v. Baltimore County, 646 F.Supp. 761, 763 (D.Md.1986); Vanover v. Ford Motor [*1121] Co., 632 F.Supp. 1095, 1096-97 (E.D.Mo.1986); and Wickstrom v. Maplewood Toyota, Inc., 416 N.W. 2d 838, 840 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1236, 108 S.Ct. 2905, 101 L.Ed.2d 937 (1988) — fail to give adequate weight to the effect of the savings clause on the question of express preemption. When we consider § 1397(k) together with § 1392(d), we conclude that Congress did not intend all common…
• Transamerica Ins. Co. v. South, 975 F.2d 321 (7th Cir. 1992)
  …(7th Cir.1989). See United States v. Taylor, 841 F. 2d 1300, 1308 (7th Cir.) (“A court may issue a nunc pro tunc order to correct the record so that it reflects what was actually done but never recorded due to clerical inadvertence.”), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1236, 108 S.Ct. 2904, 2905, 101 L.Ed.2d 937 (1988). Thus, a nunc pro tunc order is typically used to correct clerical or ministerial errors or a failure of the court to reduce to judgment what it stated orally or in an opinion. See LeBeau, 892 F. 2d at…