Legal Opinion

Gale v. Howard

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided October 6, 1987No. C4-87-509PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MULALLY, Judge.

This appeal is from an order denying appellant’s motion for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict. By special verdict, the jury found appellant had not sustained a permanent injury as a result of an automobile accident with respondent. Because appellant failed to cross the no-fault tort threshold, judgment was entered for respondent.

Appellant claims a new trial should have been granted because the jury’s verdict was not supported by the evidence and insufficient damages were awarded under the influence of passion or prejudice. We disagree and affirm.

FACTS

On…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. LaValle v. Aqualand Pool Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  2. Marriage of Kostelnik v. KostelnikCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
  3. Flanagan v. LindbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
  4. Rud v. FloodCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
  5. Johnson v. Alford & Neville, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Heine v. SimonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004

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

Powered by the Exa API