Cited by

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

82 citing documents.

Lee v. Hunt 642 N.W.2d 57 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Trapp v. Hancuh 587 N.W.2d 61 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Trapp v. Hancuh 587 N.W.2d 61 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
1 (1996) (courts should construe statutory provisions so each provision is given effect); (a prevailing party receives pre-verdict interest only if amount of offer is closer to the verdict).
Smith v. American States Insurance Co. 586 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Smith v. American States Insurance Co. 586 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(statute “abrogate[s] a plaintiffs common law right to be over-compensated and now prevents] double recoveries in many circumstances by requiring the deduction from the verdict of certain benefits received by a plaintiff’) (emphasis added).
Schmuckler v. Creurer 585 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Schmuckler v. Creurer 585 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
This statute “abrogate[s] a plaintiffs common law right to be over-compensated and now prevent[s] double recoveries in many circumstances by requiring the deduction from the verdict of certain benefits received by a plaintiff.” (emphasis added).
Suchy v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 574 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Suchy v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 574 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Kroning v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. 567 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1997
Lloyd v. City of St. Paul 538 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Lloyd v. City of St. Paul 538 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
But Minnesota courts no longer recognize the “proprietary distinction.” (rejecting resurrection of “governmental-proprietary” distinction).
Dean v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 535 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 1995
Dean v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 535 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 1995
ces we have held: Because the primary purpose of this statute is to prevent double recoveries, no deduction is allowed where subrogation rights are asserted “to ensure that the amount of collateral sources deducted from the award is the amount to which the plaintiff is actually entitled, and does not include amounts plaintiff must ultimately pay over to a subrogee.” ().
Midway National Bank v. Estate of Bollmeier 504 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Midway National Bank v. Estate of Bollmeier 504 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Buysse v. Baumann-Furrie & Co. 498 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Buysse v. Baumann-Furrie & Co. 498 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
“A prevailing party can receive pre-verdict interest only if the amount of its offer is closer to the verdict than the amount of the opposing party’s offer.”
Rogers v. Ponti-Peterson Post 1720 Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States of America, Inc. 495 N.W.2d 897 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Rogers v. Ponti-Peterson Post 1720 Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States of America, Inc. 495 N.W.2d 897 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Gohman v. Stavrum 482 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Gohman v. Stavrum 482 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Casper v. City of Stacy 473 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Casper v. City of Stacy 473 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Anderson v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co. 465 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Anderson v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co. 465 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Bruwelheide v. Garvey 465 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Bruwelheide v. Garvey 465 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1990
Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1990
Compare Snyder, d at 789 , -32 (Minn.1990).
Olson v. Blaeser 458 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Olson v. Blaeser 458 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1990