DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Christy v. Saliterman, 179 N.W.2d 288.

85 citing documents.

  • Edward Gerrety, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    But an expert need not be “the person best qualified to give an opinion or even to some of the few persons best qualified.” (emphasis added); see also Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Co-op Elec.
  • Cathy J. Foy, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    Appellants next assert that the phrase “in a similar community” should have been removed from the instruction on reasonable care by an orthopedic surgeon,”
  • Craig A. Reichel v. Wendland Utz, LTD Minn. 2024
  • Craig A. Reichel v. Wendland Utz, LTD Minn. 2024
    First, we have considered the typical malpractice scenario, when an attorney’s alleged negligence in failing to file an action on behalf of the plaintiff “permit[ed] the statute of limitations to operate against [the] plaintiff’s claim.” see also Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. O’Connor & Hannan, –65 (Minn. 1992) (involving a situation when a defendant was found liable because certain defenses were, in the view of the defendant, negligently forfeited).
  • Craig A Reichel, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    In contrast, when the underlying matter involves the loss or destruction of a cause of action, a plaintiff must show traditional “but for” causation: “that but for defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the action.” Jerry’s Enters., d at 816; -94 (Minn. 1970) (“In an action against an attorney for negligence or 11 breach of contract, the client has the burden of proving .
  • Mario A. Ruiz, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    “Moreover, opinion evidence is not restricted to the testimony of the [expert] best qualified to give [it],” and “any person whose profession or vocation deals with the subject at hand is entitled to be heard as an expert, while the value of his evidence is to be tested by cross -examination and ultimately determined by the jury.”
  • Patricia J. Marquardt, Minn. 2020
  • Broehm v. Mayo Clinic Rochester 690 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2005
  • Hauschildt v. Beckingham 686 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2004
  • Hauschildt v. Beckingham 686 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2004
    Christy v. Saliterman, 288 Minn. 144, 150 , -94 (1970).
  • Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A. 520 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1994
  • Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A. 520 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1994
    Christy v. Saliterman, 288 Minn. 144 , Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe
  • Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. O'Connor & Hannan 494 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1992
  • In Re Disciplinary Action Against Perry 494 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1992
  • In Re Disciplinary Action Against Perry 494 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1992
    See e.g., Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, Ronnigen v. Hertogs, 294 Minn. 7 , Christy v. Saliterman, 288 Minn. 144
  • Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. O'Connor & Hannan 494 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1992
    See Ronnigen v. Hertogs, 294 Minn. 7, 9-10 , -22 (1972); Christy v. Saliterman, 288 Minn. 144, 151
  • Williams v. Wadsworth 490 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • Williams v. Wadsworth 490 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    Christy v. Saliterman, 288 Minn. 144, 167
  • Behlke v. Conwed Corp. 474 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • Behlke v. Conwed Corp. 474 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    Christy v. Saliterman, 288 Minn. 144, 168
  • Fiedler v. Adams 466 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • Fiedler v. Adams 466 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    To establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff must show: (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship giving rise to a duty, Christy v. Saliterman, 288 Minn. 144, 150 , (2) the negligent giving of advice or exercise of judgment on which the client detrimentally relies, Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, , 693 n. 4 (Minn.1980); and (3) the negligent advice or judg ment must be the proximate cause of damage to the client.
  • Johnson v. Taylor 435 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Carey and Emmings, Ltd. v. Ludowese 434 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Carey and Emmings, Ltd. v. Ludowese 434 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, (citing Christy v. Saliterman, 288 Minn. 144 , ).
  • Veit v. Anderson 428 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Veit v. Anderson 428 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    See Togstad, d at 693 ; Ronnigen v. Hertogs, 294 Minn. 7 , Christy v. Saliterman, 288 Minn. 144, 150 , -8 (Minn.Ct.App.1985), affirmed
  • State v. Feehan 412 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Feehan 412 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Christy v. Saliterman, 288 Minn. 144
  • Rubbelke v. Mabley 410 N.W.2d 880 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Rubbelke v. Mabley 410 N.W.2d 880 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Christy v. Saliterman, 288 Minn. 144, 150 , -94 (1970).
  • Gillespie v. Klun 406 N.W.2d 547 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Gillespie v. Klun 406 N.W.2d 547 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Blue Water Corp., Inc., d at 281 , citing Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, Christy v. Saliterman, 288 Minn. 144, 150 , -94 (1970).
  • Poplinski v. Gislason 397 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Poplinski v. Gislason 397 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, (citing Christy v. Saliterman, 288 Minn. 144 , ).
  • Paoletti v. Zlimen 396 N.W.2d 893 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Paoletti v. Zlimen 396 N.W.2d 893 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, *895 (per curiam); Christy v. Saliterman, 288 Minn. 144, 150 , -94 (1970).
  • Bauer v. Friedland 394 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Bauer v. Friedland 394 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Christy v. Saliterman, 288 Minn. 144, 167-68
  • Molever v. Roush 732 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Oakes & Kanatz v. Schmidt 391 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Oakes & Kanatz v. Schmidt 391 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    See Christy v. Saliterman, 288 Minn. 144, 150 , -94 (1970).
  • 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
    Because the supreme court has held that an attorney acted negligently in permitting the statute of limitations to bar a claim (Christy v. Saliterman, 288 Minn. 144, 151 , ), appellant aruges that we should hold respondent negligent as a matter of law.
  • Riewe v. Arnesen 381 N.W.2d 448 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Riewe v. Arnesen 381 N.W.2d 448 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    (quoting Christy v. Saliterman, 288 Minn. 144, 167 , ).
  • Kohoutek v. Hafner 366 N.W.2d 633 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Kohoutek v. Hafner 366 N.W.2d 633 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Christy v. Saliterman, 288 Minn. 144, 165
  • Cafferty v. Monson 360 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Cafferty v. Monson 360 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    In Christy v. Saliterman, 288 Minn. 144 , the issue was raised whether an attorney had improperly suggested damages on a per diem basis.