 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Suttle v. City of St. Paul7/31/2001
. But as the district court found:
The ity knew nothing about this cancellation [of McClenton's insurance policy. Appellant] seems to argue that the City should have a method of keeping track of this.
Appellant provides no support for this argument. After the dog was released in reliance on the policy, City had no way of foreseeing or knowing that the policy would be canceled. There was no error of law in concluding that neither City nor County proximately caused the injury .
4. Appellant's Motions to Continue and to Amend
"The granting of a continuance is a matter within the discretion of the trial court and its ruling will not be reversed absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion." Dunshee v. Douglas, 255 N.W.2d 42, 45 (Minn. 1977) (citation omitted). "Whether to allow an amendment is committed to the trial court's discretion." Utecht v. Shopko Dep't Store, 324 N.W.2d 652, 654 (Minn. 1982) (citation omitted.).
The district court granted a continuance on City's motions so appellant could depose two of City's witnesses, but denied appellant's motion to amend her complaint. Appellant claims that, " he facts and pleadings were still being established when the court dismissed this case" but does not explain what amendment she wanted or why she did not initiate discovery. She provides this court with no basis for overturning the district court's discretionary decision.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|