Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Jadwin v. Kasal, 318 N.W.2d 844.

42 citing documents.

Renee Hogendorf, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Appellants urge that we should apply the reasonableness test identified in the mechanic’s which, they assert, reflects “the concept o f proportionality.” But t his is a MERLA case, not a mechanic’s lien case, and we have applied the lodestar method and its associated factors for evaluating the reasonableness of attorney fees in the MERLA context.
All Around Property Preservation, LLC v. Ronald Clark, Bank of America, N.A., ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
All Around Property Preservation, LLC v. Ronald Clark, Bank of America, N.A., ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Sustainable 9, LLC d/b/a Sustainable 9 Design + Build, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Accredited Electrical Solutions, LLC, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(listing nine relevant factors, including “the value of the interest involved”).
ProStar Exteriors, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Manufacturing Solutions of Minnesota, Inc., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Moreover, even if a contract provides for attorney fees, the party seeking attorney fees under the contract must be a prevailing party because “considerations of public policy militate against awarding attorney fees to a 14 nonprevailing party.” (refusing to enforce agreement providing for attorney fees “because .
T & R Flooring, LLC v. Beverly J. O'Byrne, Eastwood Bank, Mac's Plumbing Service, Inc., Johnson Comfort Systems, … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
T & R Flooring, LLC v. Beverly J. O'Byrne, Eastwood Bank, Mac's Plumbing Service, Inc., Johnson Comfort Systems, … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(noting that the district court has a “superior vantage point for observing many of the relevant factors”).
Jovani Nassar v. U.S. Home Corporation d/b/a Lennar Homes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jovani Nassar v. U.S. Home Corporation d/b/a Lennar Homes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
rict courts discretion in awarding fees, “something other than the lodestar method of review is required to determine whether an award of attorneys’ fees is warranted.” Appellants appear to argue that, instead of the lodestar method, district courts should be required to consider the circumstances set out in State by Head v. Paulson, 290 Minn. 371
Riverview Muir Doran, LLC v. JADT Development Group, LLC 790 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 2010
Riverview Muir Doran, LLC v. JADT Development Group, LLC 790 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 2010
See, (interpreting Minn.Stat.
Bolander v. Bolander 703 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Bolander v. Bolander 703 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In determining the size of the fee, the district court must consider the “time and effort required, novelty or difficulty of the issues, skill and standing of the attorney, value of the interest involved, results secured at trial, loss of opportunity for other employment, taxed party’s ability to pay, customary charges for similar services, and certainty of payment.”
Van Vickle v. C.W. Scheurer & Sons, Inc. 556 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Van Vickle v. C.W. Scheurer & Sons, Inc. 556 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Automated Building Components, Inc. v. New Horizon Homes, Inc. 514 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Automated Building Components, Inc. v. New Horizon Homes, Inc. 514 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
KIRKWOLD CONST. v. MGA Const., Inc. 498 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
KIRKWOLD CONST. v. MGA Const., Inc. 498 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Kirkwold Construction Co. v. M.G.A. Construction, Inc. 498 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Kirkwold Construction Co. v. M.G.A. Construction, Inc. 498 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Lyman Lumber Co. v. Cornerstone Construction, Inc. 487 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Lyman Lumber Co. v. Cornerstone Construction, Inc. 487 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Comstock & Davis, Inc. v. G.D.S. & Associates 481 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Distinguished Comstock & Davis, Inc. v. G.D.S. & Associates 481 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
C. Kowalski, Inc. v. Davis 472 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
C. Kowalski, Inc. v. Davis 472 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Northwest Wholesale Lumber, Inc. v. Citadel Co. 457 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Northwest Wholesale Lumber, Inc. v. Citadel Co. 457 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Dixon v. Johnson 430 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Dixon v. Johnson 430 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(factor to be considered in making attorney fees award is result obtained for client).
Oleisky v. Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n Minneapolis 398 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Bloomington Electric Co. v. Freeman's, Inc. 394 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Bloomington Electric Co. v. Freeman's, Inc. 394 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Sprangers v. Interactive Technologies, Inc. 394 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Sprangers v. Interactive Technologies, Inc. 394 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In re Commercial State Bank in St. Paul 388 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In re Commercial State Bank in St. Paul 388 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Richard Knutson, Inc. v. Westchester, Inc. 374 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Richard Knutson, Inc. v. Westchester, Inc. 374 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 1985