damages claim in Minnesota

2014The statute provides that, generally, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by contract or allowed by law, preverdict, preaward, or prereport interest on pecuniary damages shall be computed as provided in paragraph (c) from the time of the commencement of the action or a demand for arbitration, or the time of a written notice of claim, whichever occurs first.” Before the 1984 amendment of section 549.09 “[a] plaintiff [was] entitled to prejudgment interest on a final judgment where the damages claim [was] liquidated, or, if unliquidated, where the damages were readily ascertainable by computation or

1995Before the 1984 amendment of section 549.09 [a] plaintiff [was] entitled to prejudgment interest on a final judgment where the damages claim [was] liquidated, or, if un-liquidated, “where the damages were readily ascertainable by computation or reference to generally recognized standards such as market value and not where the amount of damages depended upon contingencies or upon jury discretion (as in actions for personal injury or injury to reputation).” Summit Court, Inc. v. Northern States Power, 354 N.W.2d 13, 16 (Minn.1984) (quoting Potter v. Hartzell Propeller, Inc., 291 Minn. 513, 518 ,

1995Before the 1984 amendment of section 549.09 [a] plaintiff [was] entitled to prejudgment interest on a final judgment where the damages claim [was] liquidated, or, if un-liquidated, “where the damages were readily ascertainable by computation or reference to generally recognized standards such as market value and not where the amount of damages depended upon contingencies or upon jury discretion (as in actions for personal injury or injury to reputation).” Summit Court, Inc. v. Northern States Power, 354 N.W.2d 13, 16 (Minn.1984) (quoting Potter v. Hartzell Propeller, Inc., 291 Minn. 513, 518 ,

1995Before the 1984 amendment of section 549.09 [a] plaintiff [was] entitled to prejudgment interest on a final judgment where the damages claim [was] liquidated, or, if un-liquidated, “where the damages were readily ascertainable by computation or reference to generally recognized standards such as market value and not where the amount of damages depended upon contingencies or upon jury discretion (as in actions for personal injury or injury to reputation).” Summit Court, Inc. v. Northern States Power, 354 N.W.2d 13, 16 (Minn.1984) (quoting Potter v. Hartzell Propeller, Inc., 291 Minn. 513, 518 ,

2015The common-enterprise doctrine bars a damages claim based on the negligence of a third party’s employee when three factors are satisfied: “(1) The employers must be engaged on the same project; (2) The employees must be [w]orking together (common activity); and (3) In such fashion that they are subject to the same or similar hazards.” McCourtie v. U.S. Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 506 , 93 N.W.2d 552, 556 (1958).

2015The common-enterprise doctrine bars a damages claim based on the negligence of a third party’s employee when three factors are satisfied: “(1) The employers must be engaged on the same project; (2) The employees must be [w]orking together (common activity); and (3) In such fashion that they are subject to the same or similar hazards.” McCourtie v. U.S. Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 506 , 93 N.W.2d 552, 556 (1958).

2014“In 1984, . . . section 549.09 was amended to allow pre-verdict interest irrespective of a defendant’s ability to ascertain the amount of damages for which he might be held liable.” Lienhard v. State, 431 N.W.2d 861, 865 (Minn. 1988); see Skifstrom, 524 N.W.2d at 296–97 (following Lienhard); see also Myers v. Hearth Techs., Inc., 621 N.W.2d 787, 794 (Minn. App. 2001) (following Lienhard and Skifstrom), review denied (Minn. Mar. 13, 2001); Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc., 18 544 N.W.2d 490 , 500–01 (Minn. App. 1996) (same).

2014“In 1984, . . . section 549.09 was amended to allow pre-verdict interest irrespective of a defendant’s ability to ascertain the amount of damages for which he might be held liable.” Lienhard v. State, 431 N.W.2d 861, 865 (Minn. 1988); see Skifstrom, 524 N.W.2d at 296–97 (following Lienhard); see also Myers v. Hearth Techs., Inc., 621 N.W.2d 787, 794 (Minn. App. 2001) (following Lienhard and Skifstrom), review denied (Minn. Mar. 13, 2001); Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc., 18 544 N.W.2d 490 , 500–01 (Minn. App. 1996) (same).

2014The statute provides that, generally, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by contract or allowed by law, preverdict, preaward, or prereport interest on pecuniary damages shall be computed as provided in paragraph (c) from the time of the commencement of the action or a demand for arbitration, or the time of a written notice of claim, whichever occurs first.” Before the 1984 amendment of section 549.09 “[a] plaintiff [was] entitled to prejudgment interest on a final judgment where the damages claim [was] liquidated, or, if unliquidated, where the damages were readily ascertainable by computation or

2014“In 1984, . . . section 549.09 was amended to allow pre-verdict interest irrespective of a defendant’s ability to ascertain the amount of damages for which he might be held liable.” Lienhard v. State, 431 N.W.2d 861, 865 (Minn. 1988); see Skifstrom, 524 N.W.2d at 296–97 (following Lienhard); see also Myers v. Hearth Techs., Inc., 621 N.W.2d 787, 794 (Minn. App. 2001) (following Lienhard and Skifstrom), review denied (Minn. Mar. 13, 2001); Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc., 18 544 N.W.2d 490 , 500–01 (Minn. App. 1996) (same).

2011See Hoffman, 764 N.W.2d at 39 ; see also id. at 48 (“Because appellants’ claim for compensatory damages ... would lead to discrimination between ratepayers, we hold that the filed rate doctrine bars this claim.”). .

2011See Hoffman, 764 N.W.2d at 39 ; see also id. at 48 (“Because appellants’ claim for compensatory damages ... would lead to discrimination between ratepayers, we hold that the filed rate doctrine bars this claim.”). .

2006Due process and the Remedies Clause provide the roots for our enduring holding that a "common-law right of action may be abrogated without providing a reasonable substitute if a permissible legislative objective is pursued." Haney v. Int'l Harvester Co., 294 Minn. 375, 385 , 201 N.W.2d 140, 146 (1972).

2006Due process and the Remedies Clause provide the roots for our enduring holding that a "common-law right of action may be abrogated without providing a reasonable substitute if a permissible legislative objective is pursued." Haney v. Int'l Harvester Co., 294 Minn. 375, 385 , 201 N.W.2d 140, 146 (1972).

1992Summit Court, Inc. v. Northern States Power Co., 354 N.W.2d 13, 16 (Minn.1984); see Donaldson, 278 N.W.2d at 537 (interest awarded where surviving spouse received accumulated benefits); Ryan, 251 Minn. at 254 , 88 N.W.2d at 21 (interest was awarded when police officer received accumulated benefits); Seeway Port Auth. of Duluth v. Midland Ins.

1992Summit Court, Inc. v. Northern States Power Co., 354 N.W.2d 13, 16 (Minn.1984); see Donaldson, 278 N.W.2d at 537 (interest awarded where surviving spouse received accumulated benefits); Ryan, 251 Minn. at 254 , 88 N.W.2d at 21 (interest was awarded when police officer received accumulated benefits); Seeway Port Auth. of Duluth v. Midland Ins.

1992Summit Court, Inc. v. Northern States Power Co., 354 N.W.2d 13, 16 (Minn.1984); see Donaldson, 278 N.W.2d at 537 (interest awarded where surviving spouse received accumulated benefits); Ryan, 251 Minn. at 254 , 88 N.W.2d at 21 (interest was awarded when police officer received accumulated benefits); Seeway Port Auth. of Duluth v. Midland Ins.

1985This notion is sometimes expressed by stating that punitive damages are incidental to actual damages, Claude v. Weaver Construction Co., 261 Iowa 1225, 1229 , 158 N.W.2d 139, 143 (1968), or that there is no separate cause of action for punitive damages, B.B.

1985This notion is sometimes expressed by stating that punitive damages are incidental to actual damages, Claude v. Weaver Construction Co., 261 Iowa 1225, 1229 , 158 N.W.2d 139, 143 (1968), or that there is no separate cause of action for punitive damages, B.B.