Legal Opinion

Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Co. v. Retrum

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided June 5, 1990No. C3-89-1624PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FOLEY, Judge.

This is an appeal from denial of a motion for new trial. Appellant Minnesota Mutual Fire and Casualty Company challenges the trial court’s refusal to submit nuisance and trespass claims to jury as being barred by two year statute of limitations in Minn. Stat. § 541.051 (1988). In making that challenge, Minnesota Mutual improperly raises legal and factual issues for the first time on appeal. Minnesota Mutual also challenges the trial court’s refusal to inform the jury of a pretrial settlement between respondents Robert and Cheryl Ret-rum and alleged tortfeasor. We affirm.

FAC…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Thiele v. StichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  2. Frey Ex Rel. Frey v. SnelgroveSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
  3. Connolly v. Nicollet HotelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
  4. Ford v. Emerson Electric Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1988
  5. Fagerlie v. City of WillmarCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Nolan and Nolan v. City of EaganCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2003
  2. Gores v. SchultzCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2009
  3. Acrometal Companies, Inc. v. First American Bank of BrainerdCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991
  4. Menard, Inc. v. King De Son, Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991
  5. Marriage of Clark v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2002

1 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