 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nagel v. Minntertainment6/20/2000
5 (1971) (assignment of error based on mere assertion not supported by authority is waived). Moreover, statutory costs and filing fees are not synonymous, as Minntertainment implies. See, e.g., Tchida v. Police Officers' Fed'n of Minneapolis, 375 N.W.2d 856, 860 (Minn. App. 1985) (listing statutory costs and filing fees as two distinct items), review denied (Minn. Oct. 22, 1985).
Second, Minntertainment argues that Nagel could have saved $80 by using the U.S. Postal Service instead of personal service for the summons, complaint, and a response to one of Minntertainment's motions for summary judgment. Again, its assertion is unsupported by authority and therefore is waived. See Schoepke, 290 Minn. at 519-20, 187 N.W.2d at 135. Moreover, Minn. Stat. § 549.04 (1998) provides that fees for service of process are recoverable; it does not require service via the U.S. Postal Service.
Third, Minntertainment contends that Minn. Stat. § 357.32 precludes Nagel from recovering the costs of obtaining depositions not used at trial. But Minntertainment misreads the statute, which simply provides that fees paid for certified copies of depositions shall be allowed in the taxation of costs. By contrast, the decision to allow the costs of depositions as disbursements is within the district court's discretion. Green-Glo Turf Farms, Inc. v. State, 347 N.W.2d 491, 495 (Minn. 1984).
Fourth, Minntertainment argues that Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 127 limits Nagel's expert witness fees for Gauger and the medical expert. But
Rule 127 is a limitation on the amount which the court administrator may tax, and the rule expressly provides that the limitation is "subject to increase or decrease by a judge." Moreover, Minn. Stat. § 357.25 (1992) permits a judge to allow expert fees "as may be just and reasonable. Quade & Sons Refrigeration, Inc. v. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co., 510 N.W.2d 256, 260 (Minn. App. 1994), review denied (Minn. Mar. 15, 1994). We see no abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.
|