Cited by

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

95 citing documents.

Federated Mutual Insurance Co. v. Litchfield Precision Components, Inc. 456 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 1990
Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, (emphasis added); (“failure of proof as to any one of the enumerated [malpractice] elements defeats recovery”), cert.
Computer Tool & Engineering, Inc. v. Northern States Power Co. 453 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Computer Tool & Engineering, Inc. v. Northern States Power Co. 453 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
On appeal, a trial court’s decision regarding ex-cessiveness of damages will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion, *575 where failure to correct the decision would be “shocking” and result in a “plain injustice.” Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe
Friesen's, Inc. v. Larson 443 N.W.2d 830 Minn. 1989
Friesen's, Inc. v. Larson 443 N.W.2d 830 Minn. 1989
Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe
Friesens, Inc. v. Larson 438 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Friesens, Inc. v. Larson 438 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe
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 v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe
Thiele v. Stich 425 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1988
Thiele v. Stich 425 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1988
More specifically, this court “will not consider the applicability of the statute of limitations on appeal, even though the question was raised below, if it was not passed on by the trial court.” Rehberger v. Project Plumbing Co. Inc., 295 Minn. 577, 578 , accord Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe
Franko v. Mitchell 762 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
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).
Greenwood v. Peterson 717 P.2d 892 Ariz. 1986
Matter of Strobel 717 P.2d 892 Ariz. 1986
Gerdin v. Princeton State Bank 371 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Gerdin v. Princeton State Bank 371 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe
Collins v. Johnson 374 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Collins v. Johnson 374 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, the supreme court explained: [Wjhere the injury complained of consists of a “single act,” the limitations period commences from the time of that act, even though the doctor-patient relationship may continue thereafter.
Bushie v. City of Crookston 368 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Bushie v. City of Crookston 368 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe
Spannaus v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, & Lindgren, Ltd. 368 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Distinguished Spannaus v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, & Lindgren, Ltd. 368 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
At most, appellant Spannaus gave respondents the summons and complaint, along with a number of other documents, and, as examined by hindsight, hoped that respondent would represent appellants as to “everything.” This type of case is distinguishable from Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, where the court found that a jury could properly find that the client sought and received legal advice from the attorney, under circumstances where advice was obtained and it was reasonably foreseeable
Yates v. Hanna Min. Co., Inc. 365 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Yates v. Hanna Min. Co., Inc. 365 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Christopherson; Togstad v. Veseley, Otto, Miller & Keefe
Troupe v. Sunrise Electric, Inc. 360 N.W.2d 633 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Troupe v. Sunrise Electric, Inc. 360 N.W.2d 633 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, Patterson v. Donahue, 291 Minn. 285, 287-88
Cook v. Connolly 353 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Virsen v. Rosso, Beutel, Johnson, Rosso & Ebersold 356 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Virsen v. Rosso, Beutel, Johnson, Rosso & Ebersold 356 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
A plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney rendered legal advice “under circumstances which made it reasonably foreseeable to the attorney that if such advice was rendered negligently, the individual receiving the advice might be injured thereby.” Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, n. 4 (Minn.1980).
Blue Water Corp., Inc. v. O'TOOLE 336 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 1983
Blue Water Corp., Inc. v. O'TOOLE 336 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 1983
Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, Christy v. Saliterman, 288 Minn. 144, 150 , , 293-94 *282 (1970).
Langeland v. Farmers State Bank of Trimont 319 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1982
Langeland v. Farmers State Bank of Trimont 319 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1982
See, e.g., Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, Christy v. Saliterman, 288 Minn. 144
Marker v. Greenberg 313 N.W.2d 4 Minn. 1981
Marker v. Greenberg 313 N.W.2d 4 Minn. 1981
See also Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe
Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe v. Blake 311 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1981
Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe v. Blake 311 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1981
This case arises out of the facts described in Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe