Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kittler & Hedelson v. Sheehan Properties, Inc., 203 N.W.2d 835.

23 citing documents.

Range Cornice & Roofing Company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Kittler & Hedelson v. Sheehan Props., Inc. , –40 ( Minn. 1973) (quotation omitted).
Aspen Builders and Remodelers, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Kittler & Hedelson v. Sheehan Props, Inc.
Gamma Lending Omega, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
These circumstances include factors, such as “[t]he time and labor required,” “the fees customarily charged for similar services,” and “the experience, character, reputation, and ability of counsel.” Kittler & Hedelson v. Sheehan Prop., Inc.
Christensen Law Office, PLLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Kittler & Hedelson v. Sheehan Props., Inc. , 295 Minn. 232, 235, (stating that the essentials of attorney -fee agreements “whether oral or written, express or implied, are the same as any other contracts.”).
Kristin M. Schumacher, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Inc., 295 Minn. 232, 239
Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A. v. Gene Rechtzigel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A. v. Gene Rechtzigel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
are the same as any other contracts.” Kittler & Hedelson v. Sheehan Props., Inc., 295 Minn. 232, 235
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
Claims for Attorney Fees and Disbursements Breach of Contract “[W]hen a fee agreement is fairly entered into with the client and involves no fraud by the attorney, it is as valid and binding as other contracts not involving a fiduciary.” Kittler & Hedelson v. Sheehan Props., Inc., 295 Minn. 232, 235, d 835, 838 (1973).
Dunham v. Roer 708 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Dunham v. Roer 708 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
“[T]he test is whether the process was used to accomplish an unlawful end for which it was not designed or intended, or to compel a party to do a collateral act which he is not legally required to do.” Kittler & Hedelson v. Sheehan Props., Inc., 295 Minn. 232, 239
Bonner v. Showa Denko, K.K. 518 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In Re L-Tryptophan Cases 518 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In Re L-Tryptophan Cases 518 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Kittler & Hedelson v. Sheehan Properties, Inc., 295 Minn. 232, 236-37
Bonner v. Showa Denko, K.K. 518 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Kittler & Hedelson v. Sheehan Properties, Inc., 295 Minn. 232, 236-37
Roehrdanz v. Schlink 368 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Roehrdanz v. Schlink 368 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Kittler & Hedelson v. Sheehan Properties, Inc., 295 Minn. 232, 236-37
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
Our Supreme Court in Kittler & Hedelson v. Sheehan Properties, Inc., 295 Minn. 232 , explicitly referred to the Code of Professional Responsibility for standards to determine the reasonableness of an attorney’s fee.
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
The Minnesota Supreme 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 , ).
Continental Casualty Co. v. Knowlton 232 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 1975
Continental Casualty Co. v. Knowlton 232 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 1975
In the case of Kittler & Hedelson v. Sheehan Properties, Inc. 295 Minn. 232 , we said that the right to enter into fee arrangements with an attorney is protected by Minn. St.