Legal Opinion

Barrera v. Muir

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided September 10, 1996No. C7-95-2641PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

WILLIS, Judge.

Maria Barrera appeals from the denial of her motion for a new trial, arguing that expert testimony established that she suffered a permanent injury, thereby precluding the jury’s contrary finding. She also argues that the trial court improperly applied Minn. R. Civ. P. 68 in taxing costs. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

FACTS

Early in the morning of July 5,1993, while on her way to work as a farm laborer, appellant Maria Barrera was a passenger in a car driven by her husband. The Barreras’ car was involved in a collision with a car driven by respondent David…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Jacobs v. Rosemount Dodge-Winnebago SouthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
  2. Halla Nursery, Inc. v. Baumann-Furrie & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  3. Krueger v. KnutsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1961
  4. Hughes v. Sinclair Marketing, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
  5. Nemanic v. Gopher Heating & Sheet Metal, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1983

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Shamrock Development, Inc. v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2007
  2. Year 2001 Budget Appeal of Landgren v. Pipestone County Board of CommissionersCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
  3. Smith v. FlotterudCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006
  4. State v. NorthwayCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API