Legal Opinion
Stinson v. Clark Equipment Co.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided July 23, 1991No. C4-90-2626PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FOLEY, Judge.
Appellant James Stinson challenges the district court’s determination that a Rule 68 offer of judgment, plus costs and disbursements does not include prejudgment interest. Respondent Clark Equipment Company maintains the district court’s award of costs and disbursements should be remanded or denied because the district court’s findings were insufficient. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.
FACTS
Stinson commenced this products liability action against Clark and others not party to this appeal on January 14, 1987. He alleges he was caught between the left arm and…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Garrick v. Northland Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1991
- Carpenter v. MattisonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
- Lange v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
- Green-Glo Turf Farms, Inc. v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- Romain v. Pebble Creek PartnersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Jassmine D. Adams v. Toyota Motor CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2017
- Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Nishika Ltd., Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)1994
- Collins v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
- Beniek v. Textron, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
- Quade & Sons Refrigeration, Inc. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.