Legal Opinion

Halla Nursery, Inc. v. Baumann-Furrie & Co.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided June 21, 1989No. C9-88-2119PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

NIERENGARTEN, Judge.

The district court granted the respondent’s motion for a new trial because the court failed to advise the jury of the effect of its answers to comparative fault questions. The appellant asserts the district court abused its discretion by granting the new trial because the respondent did not timely object to the jury instructions and claims the alleged errors do not involve fundamental law or controlling principle. We affirm.

FACTS

The appellant Baumann-Furrie & Company is an accounting firm which provided accounting services for the respondent Hal-la Nursery, Inc.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United StatesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
  2. Lincoln Grain, Inc. v. Coopers & LybrandNebraska Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Company of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
  4. Storey v. WeinbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
  5. Shapiro v. GlekelDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1974

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Halla Nursery, Inc. v. Baumann-Furrie & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  2. Lien v. McGladrey & PullenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Lien v. McGladrey & PullenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API