Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Meagher v. Kavli, 97 N.W.2d 370.

40 citing documents.

Craig A. Reichel v. Wendland Utz, LTD Minn. 2024
Craig A. Reichel v. Wendland Utz, LTD Minn. 2024
is not answerable for a mere error of judgment.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In re Disciplinary Action Against Letourneau 792 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 2011
In re Disciplinary Action Against Letourneau 792 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 2011
best of his knowledge, he will not be held responsible.” He cites no Minnesota case law adopting a “doctrine of Judgmental Immunity” in attorney discipline cases although we have noted that "[a]n attorney who acts in good faith and in an honest belief that his advice and acts are well founded and in the best interest of his client is not answerable for a mere error of judgment.” Meagher v. Kavli, 256 Minn. 54, 60
Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 711 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 2006
Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 711 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 2006
Larkin argues that this could not constitute breach of duty because at the time of closing, the doctrine of merger in Minnesota was “settled” or “apparently well settled.” In the alternative, Larkin argues that even if the law of merger was unsettled at the time of the alleged malpractice, it is protected from liability by the rule in Meagher v. Kavli, 256 Minn. 54
Custody of the Child of Williams v. Carlson 701 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Custody of the Child of Williams v. Carlson 701 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
See Meagher v. Kavli, 256 Minn. 54, 62
Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 691 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 691 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
*493 Meagher v. Kavli, 256 Minn. 54, 60-61 , (quotation omitted).
Trigger's Supper Club v. Sunridge Farms, Inc. 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Shigellosis Litigation 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Trigger's Supper Club v. Sunridge Farms, Inc. 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See Meagher v. Kavli, 256 Minn. 54, 61-62 , 97 N:W.2d 370, 375-76 (1959).
In Re Shigellosis Litigation 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See Meagher v. Kavli, 256 Minn. 54, 61-62 , -76 (1959).
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett 490 N.W.2d 108 Minn. 1992
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett 490 N.W.2d 108 Minn. 1992
See Meagher v. Kavli, 256 Minn. 54, 60-61
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett 476 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett 476 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See Meagher v. Kavli, 256 Minn. 54, 57 , (warning against the “omniscience of hindsight in appraising a lawyer’s conduct”).
Hulstrand, Anderson, Larson & Boyland v. Rogers 386 N.W.2d 302 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hulstrand, Anderson, Larson & Boyland v. Rogers 386 N.W.2d 302 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Respondent’s conduct must be “appraised in the light of all the surrounding circumstances existing prior to and during the course of such litigation and not solely according to an omniscience of hindsight gained after litigation has been completed.” Meagher v. Kavli, 256 Minn. 54, 57
Spannaus v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, & Lindgren, Ltd. 368 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Spannaus v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, & Lindgren, Ltd. 368 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
at 292 , quoting language from Meagher v. Kavli, 256 Minn. 54, 57
Cook v. Connolly 366 N.W.2d 287 Minn. 1985
Cook v. Connolly 366 N.W.2d 287 Minn. 1985
In Meagher v. Kavli, 256 Minn. 54, 57 , we cautioned against the “omniscience of hindsight in appraising a lawyer’s conduct,” and in Glenna we stated that dissatisfaction with a settlement solely *293 because a jury might have awarded more is no basis for a malpractice claim.
Pomani Ex Rel. Pomani v. Underwood 365 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Pomani Ex Rel. Pomani v. Underwood 365 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Meagher v. Kavli, 256 Minn. 54, 62
Danielson v. Hanford 352 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Danielson v. Hanford 352 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Meagher v. Kavli, 256 Minn. 54
Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe 291 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1980
Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe 291 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1980
Meagher v. Kavli, 256 Minn. 54
Hill v. Okay Const. Co., Inc. 252 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1977
Hill v. Okay Const. Co., Inc. 252 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1977
Ranta’s further argument that there was insufficient proof of causation under the “but for” rule of causation of Christy v. Saliterman, 288 Minn. 144 , and Meagher v. Kavli, 256 Minn. 54 , is not well founded.
Glenna v. Sullivan 245 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 1976
Glenna v. Sullivan 245 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 1976
See, Meagher v. Kavli, 256 Minn. 54
Bisbee v. Ruppert 235 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 1975
Bisbee v. Ruppert 235 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 1975
Jacobs v. Draper, 274 Minn. 110 , Connolly v. The Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405 , Meagher v. Kavli, 256 Minn. 54 , 14A Dunnell, Dig.
Thoen v. LANESBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 229 209 N.W.2d 924 Minn. 1973
Thoen v. LANESBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 229 209 N.W.2d 924 Minn. 1973
Meagher v. Kavli, 256 Minn. 54
Schwartz v. Wenger 124 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1963
Schwartz v. Wenger 124 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1963
This is unlike the situation in Meagher v. Kavli, 256 Minn. 54, 61 , 97 N. W. (2d) 370, 375 , where a protective charge would suffice.