Legal Opinion
Stoebe v. Merastar Insurance Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided October 31, 1996No. CX-95-1144PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ANDERSON, Justice.
Appellant Kay Louise Stoebe raises the issue of whether respondent Merastar Insurance Company’s offer of judgment, made pursuant to Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 68, but served fewer than ten days before the parties’ trial began, survived the commencement of trial. The district court held that Merastar’s offer of judgment did survive the commencement of trial, but the court of appeals reversed. We affirm.
Appellant Kay Louise Stoebe was injured by an uninsured motorist and brought an uninsured motorist claim against her insurer, respondent Merastar Insurance…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Marek v. ChesnySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Frost-Benco Electric Ass'n v. Minnesota Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. AugustSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- A. J. Chromy Construction Co. v. Commercial Mechanical Services, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1994
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- James Perkins v. U S West CommunicationsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1998
- In Re Estate of JanecekSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
- Madson v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
- Koes v. Advanced Design, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
- O'SELL v. PetersonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.