Legal Opinion
Coughlin v. LaBounty
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided August 28, 1984No. C2-84-591PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WOZNIAK, Judge.
The plaintiff seeks to recover noneco-nomic losses over and above his no-fault benefits by suing the driver who hit him. The jury found that the plaintiff had sustained $25,000 worth of damages, but was not permanently injured or disabled for sixty days or more. The trial court ruled that the thresholds of the No-Fault Act had not been met and entered judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, but the motion was denied and the judgment entered. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.
FACTS
Richard Coughlin’s car was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Kenneth…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Reese v. HenkeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1967
- Gardner v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Minnesota, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
- Kuehl v. National Tea Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
- Marose v. HennameyerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
- Templin v. Crestliner, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Coughlin v. RadosevichCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
- Weber Ex Rel. Sanft v. GoetzkeCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
- Luna v. ZeebCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
- Braginsky v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
- Moose Club v. LaBountyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.