Legal Opinion

Nemanic v. Gopher Heating & Sheet Metal, Inc.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided August 19, 1983No. C5-82-869PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WAHL, Justice.

This appeal raises the question of whether, in a personal injury action arising out of an automobile collision, when plaintiff introduces expert testimony to support the tort threshold required by Minn.Stat. § 65B.51, subd. 3 (1982) and the element of causation, and defendants do not produce an adverse medical witness, a directed verdict for plaintiff on these elements automatically results.

Plaintiff Lance Nemanic received a $65,-000 judgment from a jury verdict for injuries sustained in an automobile collision with defendant Warren P. Kelley in August 1979. Defendants admitted…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Boutang v. Twin City Motor Bus Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
  2. Krueger v. KnutsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1961
  3. Hanson v. Homeland Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
  4. Walton v. JonesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  5. Sullivan v. F. D. Chapman Construction Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1975

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Baber v. DillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
  2. ZumBerge v. Northern States Power Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
  3. Willmar Poultry Co. v. Carus Chemical Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
  4. Boone v. MartinezSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
  5. Pedersen v. United Services Automobile Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986

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

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

Powered by the Exa API