Volume 280 — Minnesota Reports

<bold>Insurance — accident insurance — exclusion — disability</bold> <bold>caused by concurrence of disease and accidental injury</bold>. <block_quote> 1-2. Whether or not contemporaneous or preexisting disease or ailment concurs with an accidental bodily injury so as to "directly or indirectly, wholly or in part" cause a disability within the meaning of the exclusionary language of an insurance policy providing indemnity for loss of time due to accidental bodily injury is fundamentally a question of fact and will not be disturbed on appeal if there is competent evidence to support it. So crucial a finding of fact must be precisely and clearly made. Lacking such clarity, the case is remanded for clarification of findings of fact and disposition not inconsistent with this opinion.</block_quote>

<bold>Dismissal — when proper — resolution of doubts and factual</bold> <bold>inferences</bold>. <block_quote> While an order granting a dismissal of a civil proceeding is proper if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions, together with affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, all doubts and factual inferences must be resolved against the movant and in favor of the party opposing the motion. Application of this rule is held to require the reversal of an order of the district court dismissing an appeal taken in condemnation proceedings.</block_quote>

<bold>Criminal law — trial — allusion in charge to defendant's</bold> <bold>failure to testify — effect</bold>.

<bold>Criminal law — postconviction habeas corpus — claims without</bold> <bold>merit</bold>.