Legal Opinion

Sherman v. Marden

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 20, 1994No. C1-94-1037PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

EDWARD D. MULALLY, Judge.

Appellant alleges that the trial court erred in allowing inadmissible hearsay testimony of an expert witness and that the trial judge’s absence from the courtroom during presentation of videotaped deposition testimony constituted a prejudicial irregularity in the proceedings. We affirm.

FACTS

Passenger Bonita Sherman sustained soft tissue neck injury during a car accident in January 1991. Following a three-day trial, the jury returned a special verdict finding that respondent John Marden was negligent but concluding that Sherman had not sustained permanent…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Wild v. RarigSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  2. Uselman v. UselmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  3. State v. GliddenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  4. Patton v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
  5. Benson v. Northern Gopher Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1990

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. People v. GriffinColorado Court of Appeals · 1998
  2. State v. ArguelloSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2015
  3. J. T. S. v. S. L. v. B.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API