Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Molenaar v. United Cattle Co., 553 N.W.2d 424 (1996)

Citation
Molenaar v. United Cattle Co., 553 N.W.2d 424 (1996)
Parent Document
Molenaar v. United Cattle Co., 553 N.W.2d 424 (1996)
Jurisdiction
Minnesota (state)
Effective Date
1996-07-30

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text

797 chars
The alternative basis of attorney misconduct for JNOV on punitive damages is also deficient. During closing argument Molenaar's attorney referred to Hansen's statement that United was a wholly-owned subsidiary of United Market Services Company. This statement is supported by the record and does not constitute misconduct. Molenaar's attorney accurately highlighted Hansen's admission that United and United Market Services had identical corporate officers and directors. He noted that United did not possess its own bank accounts; all accounts were held by United Market Services. United did not object, and the statements were relevant because the proper amount of punitive damages depends, in part, on the financial strength of the defendant. See Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 3 (listing factors).