Laserfiche WebLink
that "[t]o make sufficient findings of the reasonableness of costs and disbursements, .. . <br /> the [district] court must take oral testimony ... so a full record is available for review." <br /> Quade & Sons Refrigeration, Inc. v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 510 N.W.2d 256, 260 <br /> (Minn. App. 1994) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar. 15, 1994). But the <br /> supreme court has noted that Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.04 does not require the district court to <br /> conduct a hearing to determine the reasonableness of costs and disbursements. Buller v. <br /> A.D. Smith Harvestore Prods., Inc., 518 N.W.2d 537, 543 (Minn. 1994). <br /> Sheehy submitted detailed affidavits in support of its motion for costs and <br /> disbursements, and the city submitted a thorough memorandum in opposition to the <br /> motion. The district court issued specific findings stating its reasons for allowing some <br /> claimed costs and disbursements and rejecting others. Under these circumstances, the <br /> district court did not err in declining to hold a hearing on this issue, and we affirm the <br /> district court's judgment relating to costs and disbursements. <br /> Affirmed as modified. <br /> 18 <br /> 31 <br />