041416P.pdf   12/28/2006  Minnesota Supply Co.  v.  Raymond Corp.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  04-1416
                          and No:  04-1850
                          and No:  04-2168
                          and No:  04-2169
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Bowman, Author, with Arnold and Gruender, Circuit Judges]
   Civil case - Minnesota Heavy and Utility Equipment and Manufacturers
   and Dealers Act.
   District court did not err in finding that contract modification was not in
   effect as defendant failed to communicate its acceptance of modifications
   to the agreement and there was no meeting of the minds; district court did
   not err in refusing to reconsider its ruling on the contract modification
   based on additional evidence submitted after the ruling as defendant
   failed to exercise due diligence to present the evidence on a timely basis;
   district court correctly interpreted Minnesota law to find that the burden
   of proving good cause to terminate dealership arrangement was on
   defendant; district court erred in denying defendant's motion for judgment
   as a matter of law on plaintiff's claim that defendant violated Sec
   325E.0682(b)(2) of the Act; court also erred in denying the motion with
   respect to plaintiff's claim that defendant had violated Sec. 325E.0681
   subd.1 by substantially changing the competitive circumstances of the
   dealership arrangement without good cause; however, the evidence
   presented to the jury supported the finding that defendant had violated
   Sec. 325E.0681 subd. 1 by terminating the dealership arrangement
   without good cause; damage award for plaintiff affirmed; plaintiff's
   award of attorneys' fees and costs vacated and remanded for further
   proceedings consistent with this opinion.