Legal Opinion

Hallow v. Filiyaro

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided January 24, 1995No. C9-94-1674PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MANSUR, Judge * .

Respondents offered appellant, who had been injured in an automobile accident, a lump sum of $40,000 to settle the case pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 68. Appellant did not accept the $40,000 offer, and instead proceeded to trial. Six months later a jury awarded him only $4,200 in damages. Pursuant to Rule 68, the trial court then shifted respondents’ costs and disbursements to appellant. Appellant argues that the settlement offer did not conform to the requirements of Rule 68. We affirm.

FACTS

In July 1989, respondent Tammy Filiyaro was driving a vehicle…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Marek v. ChesnySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Bucko v. First Minnesota Savings BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1991
  3. Staples v. WickesbergDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1988
  4. Kusniryk v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections BoardCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
  5. Koop v. Independent School District No. 624Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Stoebe v. Merastar Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
  2. King v. FergusonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Rush v. JostockCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API