308 Minn. 439 240 N.W.2d 338

DOUGLAS STENDER v. MICHAEL MEULENERS AND ANOTHER.

240 N. W. 2d 338.

April 2, 1976

No. 45840.

Cousineau, McGuire, Shaughnessy & Anderson and Craig H. Anderson, for appellants.

Allan W. Lamkin, for respondent.

Heard before Rogosheske, Peterson, and Yetka, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.

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
308 Minn. 439 240 N.W.2d 338

Case Details

Name
Stender v. Meuleners
Decision Date
Apr 2, 1976
Citations

308 Minn. 439

240 N.W.2d 338

Jurisdiction
Minnesota

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!