Minnesota Supreme Court, 1974

Kinning v. Sutton

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 26, 1974 · Per Curiam

220 N.W.2d 485; 300 Minn. 555; 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1400 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Ruttenberg, Orren, Griswold & Norton and Lee A. Bernet, for appellant., Ellingson & Serstock and Kendall Ellingson, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2018, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Alby v. BNSF Ry. Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 2018)
Raze v. Mueller (Minn. 1999)
Pomije v. Scheiber (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the trial court denying his motion for a new trial as to the issue of damages. We affirm.

Plaintiff’s claim arises out of an automobile accident on November 4, 1967. The trial court directed the verdict in plaintiff’s favor on the issue of liability. The damage to plaintiff’s car was not an issue. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the exact amount of his medical expenses. No claim was made for loss of time. On this appeal plaintiff contends that the verdict was inadequate as no general damages were given and that the verdict was rendered under the influence of passion and prejudice.

A careful review of the record reveals that there was a sharp conflict in the medical evidence as to the nature and extent of plaintiff’s claimed injury.

It does not appear that the damages awarded were given under the *556 influence of passion and prejudice or that the verdict was so inadequate as to require the conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 111 N. W. 2d 526 (1961); Brannan v. Shertzer, 242 Minn. 277, 64 N. W. 2d 755 (1954).

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.