Legal Opinion
Foust v. McFairland
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided August 16, 2005No. A04-760, A04-1956PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
RANDALL, Judge.
Appellants appeal from the denial of their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), new trial, or remitti-tur, alleging that (1) the evidence does not support the jury’s determination and is contrary to law, (2) certain evidence should not have been excluded, (3) respondents’ intentional destruction of evidence should result in dismissal of their claims. Appellants also appeal from the partial denial of their motion for collateral source setoff. Respondents argue that the district court properly applied the law determining the setoff. We affirm on all…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Fabio v. BellomoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
- State v. BolteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
- Kroning v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
- Imlay v. City of Lake CrystalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- Federated Mutual Insurance Co. v. Litchfield Precision Components, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Swanson v. BrewsterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
- Miller v. LankowSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2011
- Tezak v. BachkeCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005
- Willis v. Indiana Harbor Steamship Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010
- Foust v. McFairlandCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.