Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Meagher v. Kavli, 88 N.W.2d 871.

76 citing documents.

Discover Bank v. Leon M Wiechmann Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Capital One Bank (USA), NA v. Marina Y. Siruk Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Bradley C. Johnson, Karol M. Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(finding an account statement established if submitted into evidence without objection).
Producers Livestock Credit Corporation v. Jeff Benson, Benedict Weiland Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Meagher v. Kavli , -79 (Minn. 1958).
Certified Question United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas J. Litterer and Mary L. Litterer … Minn. 2018
at 604 n.7; –80 (Minn. 1958) (describing the same definition of substantive law).
Barclays Bank Delaware v. Abdulkarim Dahir Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Druggists Ins., d at 573; see also Meagher v. Kavli, 251 Minn. 477, 487, (1958).
Accounts Receivable Services, LLC, as Successor in Interest to Allina Health System, Allina Health System, Nonparty Respondent v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Meagher v. Kavli, 251 Minn. 477, 487
In re Petition for Distribution of Attorney's Fees between Stowman Law Firm, P.A., and Lori Peterson Law Firm, … 870 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2015
In re Petition for Distribution of Attorney's Fees between Stowman Law Firm, P.A., and Lori Peterson Law Firm, … 870 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2015
at 990; see also Meagher v. Kavli, 251 Minn. 477, 491-92, -82 (1958) (stating that when a representation agreement is ended, the attorney is left “in a position where he may only recover the reasonable value of the services he has rendered” and thus “[a]n attorney may recover for his services under a common count in general assumpsit”).3
Toyota-Lift of Minnesota, Inc. v. American Warehouse Systems, LLC, et al. and third party plaintiffs, vs. Les Nielsen, … 868 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Toyota-Lift of Minnesota, Inc. v. American Warehouse Systems, LLC, et al. and third party plaintiffs, vs. Les Nielsen, … 868 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Meagher v. Kavli, 251 Minn. 477, 486, -79 (1958).
George E. Antrim, III, PLLC v. Samar Sabri a/k/a Samar M. Tomala a/k/a Samar Meri Tomala a/k/a Samar … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
George E. Antrim, III, PLLC v. Samar Sabri a/k/a Samar M. Tomala a/k/a Samar Meri Tomala a/k/a Samar … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
.” Meagher v. Kavli, 251 Minn. 477, 494, see also Desaman v. Butler Bros., 118 Minn. 198, 201, 136 N.W.
Julie L. Pfeiffer, Trustee on behalf of the heirs and next of kin of Dale R. Pfeiffer v. … 851 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Julie L. Pfeiffer, Trustee on behalf of the heirs and next of kin of Dale R. Pfeiffer v. … 851 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[S]ubstantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines, and regulates rights, as opposed to ‘adjective or remedial’ law, which prescribes method [sic] of enforcing the rights or obtaining redress for their invasion.” (citing Meagher v. Kavli, 251 Minn. 477, 488, d 871, 879–80 (1958)); (“A statute that does not create a new cause of action or affect a defense is procedural.”).
Lake Superior Center Authority v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc. 715 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Lake Superior Center Authority v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc. 715 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Stern, d at 324 (quoting Meagher v. Kavli, 251 Minn. 477, 488 , -80 (1958)).
State v. Maurstad 706 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Maurstad 706 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Meagher v. Kavli, 251 Minn. 477, 486
Schumacher v. Schumacher 676 N.W.2d 685 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Schumacher v. Schumacher 676 N.W.2d 685 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
“[Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines, and regulates rights.” Meagher v. Kavli, 251 Minn. 477, 488 , -80 (1958).
Lombardo v. Seydow-Weber 529 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Lombardo v. Seydow-Weber 529 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Stern, d at 324 (quoting Meagher v. Kavli, 251 Minn. 477, 488 , -80 (1958)).
Pirkov-Middaugh Ex Rel. Middaugh v. Gillette Children's Hospital 479 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Pirkov-Middaugh Ex Rel. Middaugh v. Gillette Children's Hospital 479 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Meagher v. Kavli, 251 Minn. 477, 486-87 , -79 (Minn.1958).
Nordling v. Northern States Power Co. 478 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1991
Nordling v. Northern States Power Co. 478 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1991
See also Meagher v. Kavli, 251 Minn. 477, 492 , , 882 & n. 4 (1958).
Nordling v. Northern States Power Co. 465 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Nordling v. Northern States Power Co. 465 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Meagher v. Kavli, 251 Minn. 477, 492
Zaretsky v. Molecular Biosystems, Inc. 464 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Zaretsky v. Molecular Biosystems, Inc. 464 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Meagher v. Kavli, 251 Minn. 477, 488 , -80 (1958).
Stern v. Dill 442 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 1989
Stern v. Dill 442 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 1989
“[Sjubstantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines, and regulates rights, as opposed to ‘adjective or remedial’ law, which prescribes method [sic] of enforcing the rights or obtaining redress for their invasion.” Meagher v. Kavli, 251 Minn. 477, 488 , -80 (1958).
Lampert Lumber Co. v. Ram Construction 413 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lampert Lumber Co. v. Ram Construction 413 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Meagher v. Kavli, 251 Minn. 477
Butler Manufacturing Co. v. Miranowski 390 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Butler Manufacturing Co. v. Miranowski 390 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(citing Meagher v. Kavli, 251 Minn. 477, 487 , ).
In Re Consolidated Appeal From an Order of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 365 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Re Consolidated Appeal From an Order of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 365 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“[Sjubstantive law is that which creates underlying rights and duties * * *.” Association of American Railroads v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 600 F.2d 989, 995 (D.C.Cir.1979) (citing Meagher v. Kavli, 251 Minn. 477 , ).
Ryan v. Bigos Properties Ex Rel. Bigos 351 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Ryan v. Bigos Properties Ex Rel. Bigos 351 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
DISCUSSION The reasonable value of an attorney’s services has generally been characterized as a question of fact, Meagher v. Kavli, 251 Minn. 477, 494 , and a trial court’s findings on that issue should therefore be upheld unless clearly erroneous.
Thomton, Sperry & Jensen, Ltd. v. Anderson 352 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Thomton, Sperry & Jensen, Ltd. v. Anderson 352 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Meagher v. Kavli, 251 Minn. 477, 491 , see also, Kittler & Hedelson v. Sheehan Properties, Inc., 295 Minn. 232
American Druggists Insurance v. Thompson Lumber Co. 349 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
American Druggists Insurance v. Thompson Lumber Co. 349 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See Meagher v. Kavli, 251 Minn. 477
Anda Construction Co. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, Duluth 349 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Anda Construction Co. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, Duluth 349 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
upreme Court has held that “proof of the retention of a statement of account without objection for more than a reasonable length of time may under certain circumstances operate as proof of acquiescence in or an admission of the correctness of the statement * * *.” Kittler & Hedelson v. Sheehan Properties, Inc., 295 Minn. 232, 237-38 , (quoting Meagher v. Kavli, 251 Minn. 477, 487 , ).
Olson v. Aretz 346 N.W.2d 178 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Olson v. Aretz 346 N.W.2d 178 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Meagher v. Kavli, 251 Minn. 477
Perl v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 345 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 1984