Legal Opinion

Ayers v. Kalal

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided March 18, 2019No. A18-0503Published

1Opinion of the Court

Here, the district court was in "a much better position than we are to pass upon [this new-trial] question." Brannan , 64 N.W.2d at 761. And we are unable to say on this record that the district court abused its discretion. Dr. Wengler's testimony was not impeached or contradicted, he was fully aware of the previous shoulder complaints, and his unequivocal testimony was that respondent suffered a permanent injury as a result of the collision. Second, this testimony, coupled with an understanding that "direct cause" does not necessarily mean sole cause, supports the conclusion that respondent…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Metropolitan Transit CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
  2. Hickok v. MargolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1946
  3. Langenberger v. DahlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
  4. Ouradnik v. OuradnikSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2018
  5. Lee v. HuntCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2002

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

Powered by the Exa API