Clark v. Johnson Bros. Construction
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
POPOVICH, Chief Judge.
Appellant appeals a judgment in his favor and the trial court’s order refusing to grant a new trial. Appellant claims a new trial is required because (1) defense counsel repeatedly referred to the existence of appellant’s health insurance, (2) defense counsel appealed to single juror by name during closing argument, (3) the trial court refused to instruct the jury regarding the impact of inflation on future medical costs, and (4) the jury’s damage award was less than the proven special damages. We reverse and remand.
FACTS
At 7:00 a.m. on June 26, 1974, appellant…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Ahlstrom v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
- Wilson v. Home Gas Co. Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
- Seydel v. ReuberSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1959
- Levienn v. Metropolitan Transit CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- Steinhaus v. AdamsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- State v. MoraisNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2003
- Heroff v. Metropolitan Transit CommissionCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
- Ruppert v. YaegerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- Waseca Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. OlsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
- Bregier v. National Family Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.