Legal Opinion

Kroning v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 31, 1997No. CX-95-2097PublishedCited by 61 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BLATZ, Justice.

• This appeal arises out of an. action for uninsured motorist benefits brought against appellants/defendants State Farm Automobile Insurance Company and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm) by respondents/plaintiffs Ronald and Theogene Kroning (Kronings), as a result of a one-vehicle accident in which Mr. Kroning suffered severe physical injuries. At trial, after Mrs. Kroning testified, State Farm asserted that her testimony implied that the Kronings were financially destitute. Therefore, State Farm argued it was entitled to introduce evidence of collateral…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Quercia v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
  2. Uselman v. UselmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  3. Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Company of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
  4. United States v. Edgar CarterCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1976
  5. Marriage of Maxfield v. MaxfieldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by61 opinions

  1. Scott A. Lawson v. Dale Trowbridge, Wendell Howland, and Lee RobargeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1998
  2. State v. ProfitSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
  3. George v. Estate of BakerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
  4. Estrada v. PORT CITY PROPERTIES, INC.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2011
  5. Lake Superior Center Authority v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006

56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API