costs and disbursements “incurred from the date of its offer of judgment” was dicta and is not binding precedent. Appellants also assert that, given the similarity between the Minnesota and federal rules, the Minnesota rule should be interpreted consistently with the federal rule which limits the costs and disbursements awarded under Rule 68 to post-offer costs and disbursements. Appellants argue that the commentary to Minnesota Rule 68 supports this assertion. As an initial matter, we note that while the two rules are similar, they are not identical. For example, unlike the plain language of Federal Rule 68, Minnesota Rule 68 allows either party to make an offer of judgment. Compare Minn. R. Civ. P. 68 with Fed.R.Civ.P. 68. See also Borchert v. Maloney, 581 N.W.2d 838 (Minn.1998) (<HOLDING>). Without directly addressing any remaining
holding an unaccepted rule 68 offer does not moot a claim 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 holding that federal rule 68 by its terms does not apply if the judgment is entered in favor of the offeror 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 recognizing rule