Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Imlay v. City of Lake Crystal, 453 N.W.2d 326.

82 citing documents.

Lee Michael Scheurer v. Douglas Shrewsbury as Special Administrator for the Estate of Ann Maland, Deceased,... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Lee Michael Scheurer v. Douglas Shrewsbury as Special Administrator for the Estate of Ann Maland, Deceased,... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
3”); (“A plaintiff’s award can be reduced as required by the collateral source statute, and yet this reduction should not be used to benefit a single liquid defendant until it is shown the plaintiff would be receiving a double recovery.”).
Wilmington Trust, National Association, Minn. 2023
(holding that a statute abrogated a plaintiff’s common law right).
Court of Appeals Thissen, J. Concurring, Anderson, J., Gildea, C.J. Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Minn. 2020
We have applied the federal two-pa rt formulation that examines whether the challenged legislation has a legitimate pur pose and whether it wa s “reasonable for lawmakers to believe that use of the challenged classification would promote that purpose.” 30
Minn. 2019
Getz v. Peace 918 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Getz v. Peace 918 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
2 ; see Imlay v. City of Lake Crystal , , 331 (Minn. 1990).
Steven Duane Auers, personally, and as trustee for the next of kin of Karen Auers v. Progressive Direct … 878 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Steven Duane Auers, personally, and as trustee for the next of kin of Karen Auers v. Progressive Direct … 878 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The purpose of the collateral-source statute “is to prevent double recoveries by plaintiffs.”
R. Wynn Kearney, Jr., M.D. v. The Orthopaedic and Fracture Clinic, P.A. v. Steven B. Curtis, intervening and … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
R. Wynn Kearney, Jr., M.D. v. The Orthopaedic and Fracture Clinic, P.A. v. Steven B. Curtis, intervening and … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The district court here applied common sense, in light of Graff, to achieve the essential purpose of the collateral-source-offset statute: avoiding a double recovery while not leaving the prevailing party “undercompensated.” Heine, d at 764 (); see also Graft, d at 121.
Jacquelyn K. Schneewind v. Austin Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jacquelyn K. Schneewind v. Austin Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The primary goal of the collateral-source statute “is to prevent double recoveries by plaintiffs.”
Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13 842 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13 842 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
No. 300, LaCrescent, -78 (Minn.1990); *47 Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508 , 515 n. 11, , 870 n. 11 (1969); McCormack , 278 Minn, at 343, d at 503 .
Russell v. Haji-Ali 826 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Russell v. Haji-Ali 826 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
We hold in this case of first impression that, under the plain language of the collateral-source statute, and in accordance with the supreme court’s UIM benefits received before the verdict in a direct tort action constitute a collateral source that must, on motion, be applied to reduce the judgment.
County of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights 818 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 2012
County of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights 818 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 2012
§ 466.02 (2010) (municipal); 18 Eugene McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations § 53.02.10, at 132 (3d ed. 1993) (“To mitigate the harshness of sovereign immunity, the judiciary and state legislatures developed exceptions to the rule.
Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 813 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 2012
Distinguished Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 813 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 2012
to support this argument.
Graff v. Robert M. Swendra Agency, Inc. 800 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 2011
Graff v. Robert M. Swendra Agency, Inc. 800 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 2011
The primary purpose of the collateral source statute is “to prevent double recoveries by plaintiffs.”
Swanson v. Brewster 784 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 2010
Swanson v. Brewster 784 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 2010
§ 548.251); (“[T]he primary goal of [the collateral-source statute] is to prevent double recoveries by plaintiffs....
Do v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 779 N.W.2d 853 Minn. 2010
Do v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 779 N.W.2d 853 Minn. 2010
Graff v. ROBERT M. SWENDRA AGENCY, INC. 776 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Graff v. ROBERT M. SWENDRA AGENCY, INC. 776 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Heine, d at 764 ; , 335 *755 (Minn.1990).
Do v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 752 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Do v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 752 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
1(2); see, -34 (Minn.1990) (considering UIM insurance payments to be a “collateral source” offset against a tortfeasor’s liability insurance); 4 (“No-fault benefits fall within the category of automobile accident insurance, and, therefore, by definition, the collateral source st
Rush v. Jostock 710 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Rush v. Jostock 710 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
§ 548.36, the common-law'collateral-source rule directed courts on how to reduce a plaintiffs damage award when personal-injury costs were paid by a third party other than a defendant;'
Heine v. Simon 702 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 2005
Heine v. Simon 702 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 2005
Foust v. McFairland 698 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Foust v. McFairland 698 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Tezak v. Bachke 698 N.W.2d 37 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Tezak v. Bachke 698 N.W.2d 37 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
See, (noting that stated purpose of collateral-sources statute, Minn.Stat.
Kahnke v. Green 695 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Explained Kahnke v. Green 695 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
American Family Insurance Group v. Kiess 680 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
American Family Insurance Group v. Kiess 680 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Granville v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 668 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Granville v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 668 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
2070, 2083 , 68 L.Ed.2d 514 (1981) ).
Leamington Co. v. Nonprofits' Insurance Ass'n 661 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Leamington Co. v. Nonprofits' Insurance Ass'n 661 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Kolton v. County of Anoka 645 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2002
Kolton v. County of Anoka 645 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2002
2070 , 68 L.Ed.2d 514 (1981)
Lee v. Hunt 642 N.W.2d 57 Minn. Ct. App. 2002