Stender v. Meuleners

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Stender v. Meuleners

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

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 2, 1976

DocketNo. 45840

StatusPublished

This text of 240 N.W.2d 338 (Stender v. Meuleners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 N.W.2d 338, 308 Minn. 439, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stender-v-meuleners-minn-1976.