Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 604.07 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
MS 1986 [Repealed, 1988 c 503 s 5]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases, 1987–1992 · leading case: Kleeman v. Cadwell, 414 N.W.2d 433 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
Kleeman v. Cadwell, 414 N.W.2d 433 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “We affirm. FACTS This case was submitted to a jury on the issue of damages alone, with liability admitted.”
Bianchi v. Nordby, 409 N.W.2d 835 (Minn. 1987). “Bianchi and, especially, the Minnesota Trial Lawyers Association (MTLA), amicus curiae, argue that the court erred in interpreting Minn. Stat. § 604.07 to require the court to do the discounting.”
Olsen v. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 427 N.W.2d 707 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). “Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying the appellant’s motion for costs and witness fees which exceeded the amount allowed by the district court administrator? ANALYSIS At the time of Olsen’s trial, awards for future damages were discounted to present value under…”
Johnson v. Farmers Union Cent. Exch., Inc., 414 N.W.2d 425 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “First, it discounted the award of future damages to present value, as required by Minn.Stat. § 604.07 (1986). Since the jury did not apportion the $58,000 attributable to Johnson’s failure to wear goggles between past and future damages, the trial court had to apportion those…”
Rambaum v. Swisher, 435 N.W.2d 19 (Minn. 1989). “By notice of review, plaintiff Rambaum challenged the $200,000 award reduction and further attacked the constitutionality of Minn.Stat. § 604.07, subd. 2 (1986) (requiring future damages to be reduced to present value).”
Jewett v. Deutsch, 437 N.W.2d 717 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). “Did the trial court err in discounting the award of damages pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 604.07 (1986)? 5. Did the trial court err in denying appellants’ motion for a new trial on the grounds that the damage award was the result of passion and prejudice? 6.”
Leonard v. Parrish, 420 N.W.2d 629 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). “After the verdict was returned, the trial court discounted damages to present value under Minn.Stat. § 604.07. Leonard’s damage award after discount equaled $52,062.”
Jonsson v. Ames Constr., Inc., 409 N.W.2d 560 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “Does Minn.Stat. § 604.07 (1986) require the jury or the trial court to discount to present value awards of future damages? 2.”
Herbst v. N. States Power Co., 432 N.W.2d 463 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). “Repeal of Discount Statute The trial court reduced Karen Herbst’s future damages award to present value under Minn.Stat. § 604.07 (1986). The statute was repealed effective April 13, 1988 for “all cases pending or brought on or after that date.”
Lieser v. Sexton, 441 N.W.2d 805 (Minn. 1989). “At the time of trial, Minn.Stat. § 604.07 (1986) was in effect, requiring all future damages to be discounted to present value.”
Paul Allen Frumkin v. Mayo Clinic, Paul Allen Frumkin v. Mayo Clinic, 965 F.2d 620 (8th Cir. 1992). “Mayo did not specifically attack the $6,000 award for past pain, disability and disfigurement.”
Schreiner v. Schmitz, 418 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). “Appellant claims error on various grounds, including a constitutional challenge to the future damages discount provision of the Tort Reform Act, Minn.Stat. § 604.07 (1986). FACTS Two and one-half year old Nicholas Schreiner was killed in an automobile accident, when the car…”
— Minn. Stat. § 604.07(2) — 1 case
Floyd W. Hipsher v. Lawrence Allen Lund v. Gary Allan Sanborn, 827 F.2d 337 (8th Cir. 1987).
— Minn. Stat. § 604.07(4) — 1 case
Val Robichaud & Thomas Robichaud v. Genevieve Theis, 858 F.2d 392 (8th Cir. 1988).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.