plaintiff, citing a district court decision, argues that the fundamen tal purpose of the rule — that of encouraging settlement — would be defeated if Rule 68 were applicable in any case in which the parties stipulated to the amount of the judgment. For the following reasons, we conclude that Rule 68 applies even though the judgment for plaintiff was entered pursuant to a stipulation. First, the language of Rule 68 refers to a “judgment finally obtained by the offeree.” The rule does not distinguish between judgments obtained pursuant to stipulation versus resolution on the merits. In another context, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause “judgment finally obtained by the offeree” quite literally. See Delta Air Lines Inc. v. August, 450 U.S. 346, 101 S.Ct. 1146, 67 L.Ed.2d 287 (1981) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, because there was in fact a
holding that the trial court erred when it entered summary judgment in favor of the health care provider holding that while rule 68 does not explicitly require that an offer of settlement under that rule be made in writing its requirement that the offer be served upon the adverse party implies as much holding an unaccepted rule 68 offer does not moot a claim holding that federal rule 68 by its terms does not apply if the judgment is entered in favor of the offeror recognizing that minnesota allows the offeree to recover costs as a prevailing party under minnstat  5490104 2004 despite having rejected a more favorable rule 68 offer because unlike the federal rule minnesota rule 68 does not specifically state that the offeree is responsible for her own costs and disbursements