Stender v. Meuleners

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Stender v. Meuleners

240 N.W.2d 338, 308 Minn. 439, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1784

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided April 2, 1976·No. No. 45840·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendants appeal from a judgment entered against them and from an order denying their post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial or remittitur, urging that one sentence of a witness’ testimony and one sentence of the instructions of the trial court were prejudicial in the jury’s determination of the issues of negligence and damages. We conclude that the issues raised are so without merit that an extended opinion would serve no useful purpose.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Defendants appeal from a judgment entered against them and from an order denying their post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial or remittitur, urging that one sentence of a witness’ testimony and one sentence of the instructions of the trial court were prejudicial in the jury’s determination of the issues of negligence and damages. We conclude that the issues raised are so without merit that an extended opinion would serve no useful purpose.

Affirmed.

Stender v. Meuleners, 240 N.W.2d 338, 308 Minn. 439, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1784 (Mich. 1976).

Pincite

240 N.W.2d 338 (Stender v. Meuleners) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.