Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, 291 N.W.2d 686.

95 citing documents.

Craig A. Reichel v. Wendland Utz, LTD Minn. 2024
Craig A. Reichel v. Wendland Utz, LTD Minn. 2024
Compare, e.g., Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, d 686, 688 (Minn. 1980), with Gradjelick, d at 234.
Warren v. Dinter 926 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2019
Warren v. Dinter 926 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2019
689-90 (Minn. 1980) (per curiam).
Minn. 2018
See, e.g., Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, –95 (Minn. 1980) (noting that the same attorney could have been negligent both for rendering advice without research and for failing to advise the same client on the applicable statute of limitations); cf. Capitol Supply Co. v. City of St.
The Janine M. Hirt Trust v. Neils, Franz, Chirhart, Hultgren & Evenson, P.A. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Janine M. Hirt Trust v. Neils, Franz, Chirhart, Hultgren & Evenson, P.A. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, n.4 (Minn. 1980) (holding that an attorney-client relationship was established if an attorney law firm “rendered legal advice .
Schmitz v. RINKE, NOONAN 783 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Schmitz v. RINKE, NOONAN 783 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe
In Re Paul W. Abbott Co., Inc. 767 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2009
In Re Paul W. Abbott Co., Inc. 767 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2009
Under a tort theory, a relationship exists “when a person seeks and receives legal advice from an attorney in circumstances in which a reasonable person would rely on the advice.” Pine Island, d at 448 (citing Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, , 693 n. 4 (Minn.1980); Admiral Merchs., d at 265-66 ).
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
See Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett, (“[A] professional must use reasonable care to obtain the information needed to exercise his or her professional judgment, and failure to use such reasonable care would be negligence, even if done in good faith.”); Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, (per curiam) (stating that case did “not involve mere error of judgment” where “gist of plaintiffs’ claim is that [attorney] failed to perform the minimal research that an ordinarily prudent attorney woul
Molloy v. Meier 679 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2004
Molloy v. Meier 679 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2004
Similarly, we noted in an attorney malpractice case, Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, that an attorney-client relationship existed “under circumstances which made it reasonably foreseeable to [the defendant] that [the plaintiff] would be injured if the advice were negligently given.”
Pine Island Farmers Coop v. Erstad & Riemer, P.A. 649 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 2002
Pine Island Farmers Coop v. Erstad & Riemer, P.A. 649 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 2002
See Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe
Gramling v. MEMORIAL BLOOD CENTERS 601 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Gramling v. MEMORIAL BLOOD CENTERS 601 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe
Francis v. Piper 597 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Francis v. Piper 597 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & *926 Keefe
In Re Conservatorship of Nelsen 587 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re Conservatorship of Nelsen 587 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Under the tort theory, [a]n attorney-client relationship is created whenever an individual seeks and receives legal advice from an attorney in circumstances in which a reasonable person would rely on such advice Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, , 693 n. 4 (Minn.1980) (quoting Comment, Attorney Malpractice: Use of Contract Analysis to Determine the Existence of an Attorney-Client Relationship, 63 Minn. L.Rev.
Bigay v. Garvey 562 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Bigay v. Garvey 562 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe
FIRST BANK OF MINNESOTA v. Olson 557 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
FIRST BANK OF MINNESOTA v. Olson 557 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe
Lickteig v. Alderson, Ondov, Leonard & Sween, P.A. 556 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1996
Lickteig v. Alderson, Ondov, Leonard & Sween, P.A. 556 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1996
To state a claim for legal malpractice, one must show that the “defendant acted negligently or in breach of contract.” Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, (emphasis added); Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. O’Connor & Hannan
Ross v. Briggs and Morgan 540 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 1995
Ross v. Briggs and Morgan 540 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 1995
See Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. O’Connor & Hannan, Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett, Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe
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
Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett 490 N.W.2d 108 Minn. 1992
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett 490 N.W.2d 108 Minn. 1992
See Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe
Hahn v. Tri-Line Farmers Co-Op 478 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Hahn v. Tri-Line Farmers Co-Op 478 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe
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.
Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1990
Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1990
Considering the derivative nature of a loss of consortium claim and the underwriting challenges it presents, Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, the damages cap on this injury appears to represent the legislature’s attempt to lower rates for tort liability insurance.
TJD Dissolution Corp. v. Savoie Supply Co. 460 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
TJD Dissolution Corp. v. Savoie Supply Co. 460 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, (per curiam).
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Short 459 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 1990
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Short 459 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 1990
Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe
Federated Mutual Insurance Co. v. Litchfield Precision Components, Inc. 456 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 1990