Legal Opinion
Dostal v. Curran
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided May 18, 2004No. A03-1483PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HARTEN, Judge.
Appellants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or for a new trial on the ground that expert affidavits they obtained after trial contradicted portions of the unrecanted trial testimony of one of respondents’ expert witnesses.1 The motion was denied. They challenge the denial of the motion for a new trial, which we affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Janet Dostal, a patient of respondent Southdale Obstetric & Gynecology Consultants (Southdale), delivered a healthy baby boy at the hospital of respondent Fairview Health Services (Fairview) about 9:30 a.m. on 12 February…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Larrison v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1928
- State v. CaldwellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Halla Nursery, Inc. v. Baumann-Furrie & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- ZumBerge v. Northern States Power Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
- Disch v. Helary, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- In re Distribution of Attorney's Fees between Stowman Law Firm, P.A., & Lori Peterson Law FirmCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014
- Dostal v. CurranCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
- In Re Petition for Distribution of Attorney�s Fees between Stowman Law Firm, P.A., and Lori Peterson Law Firm, formerly doing business as Lori Peterson and Associates.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014
- John Green v. Greg KellenCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015