Court Opinion

ID: 9687934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:54:10.56653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:33.306927
License: Public Domain

Rogosheske, Justice
(dissenting).
Although I agree that the verdict is excessive, I believe the better procedure in a case such as this, where the trial court found an evidentiary foundation for the award and has not directly passed upon a specific request for a reduction, is to remand with directions to the trial court to determine the amount of the remittitur, as I previously have urged in Auger v. Rofshus, 267 Minn. 87, 94, 125 N. W. (2d) 159, 164. Cf. Soltis v. Geary, 287 Minn. 19, 176 N. W. (2d) 633.
MR. Justice Otis took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice Kelly, not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.