Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Posey v. Fossen, 707 N.W.2d 712.

35 citing documents.

Rose Kissner v. Farm Bureau Financial Services Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Oronoco Estates MHC Owner LLC, d/b/a Oakwood Meadows MHC (A25-1751) v. Robert James Gregory, et al., John Doe, … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Jerome E. Johnson v. Stacy A. Bee, Cheryl Steele Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Dr. Wayne R. Freese, et al v. Dr. Reed Leiting, et al., jointly and severally Minn. Ct. App. 2023
We will reverse the district court’s prevailing- party determination only if the district court “abused its discretion, exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, or based its ruling on an erroneous vi ew of the law.” (quotation omitted).
Olson Property Investments, LLC v. Michael Alexander, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
” Borchert v. Maloney , see also Posey v. Fossen , (noting that where more than one party succeeds in part, determining which party prevailed involves “a careful weighing of the relativ e success of the parties to a lawsuit”) ; Benigni v. C ounty of St.
Dr. Eric Steffen v. Scott Uttley, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The district court abuses this discretion only if its decision “is against logic and facts on the record.”
Pamela Maslowski v. Prospect Funding Partners LLC, et al., vs. James Schwebel, Esq., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Kevin S. Carpenter, et al v. City of St. Cloud Minn. Ct. App. 2022
James Robinson v. Metropolitan Council Minn. Ct. App. 2021
This determination is a “pragmatic” one that “depends on a careful weighing of the relative success of the parties to a lawsuit, a process that invests a certain amount of discretion in the district court.” ; O’Brien, d at 902 (the prevailing - party determination “depends on a pragmatic analysis that takes into account [a party ’s] success on the merits and recovery of damages”).
Eric John Blehr v. Jacki Sue Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A district court abuses its discr etion when its decision is “against logic and facts on the record.”
Gerring Properties Inc., et al v. Martin Gerring, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A district court abuses its discretion “when its decision is against logic and facts on the record.” Posey v. Fossen
Big-D Construction Midwest, LLC v. JL Schwieters Construction, Inc., vs. Chicago Flameproof & Wood Specialties Corp. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is “against logic and facts on the record.”
John Moore v. Robinson Environmental, et al., Century Surety Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Kyle Wendell Else v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A district cour t abuses its discretion “when its decision is against logic and facts on the record.”
Sokkhan Ka v. Lonvigson’s Service Center, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The Weitz Company, LLC v. Zitting Brothers Construction Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[A] district court abuses its discretion when its decision is against logic and facts on the record.”
Lauren Hamilton v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2019
This court will only reverse the district court’ s prevailing-party determination if the district court “abused its discretion, exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, or based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law.” Posey v. Fossen , (quotation omitted).
John Athanasakoupolous, et al v. William F. Bogart, et al., Michael Behm, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A17-2081, A18-0015 John Doe 125 (A17-2078), John Doe 126, et al. (A17-2081), John Doe 123, et al. (A18-0015) … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Ernster v. Scheele 895 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ernster v. Scheele 895 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This court will reverse the district court’s prevailing-party determination if the district court “abused its discretion, exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious maimer, or based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law.” (quotation omitted).
Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. TempWorks Management Services, Inc. 896 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. TempWorks Management Services, Inc. 896 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Sevs., “[T]he district court has discretion to determine not only the amount of an award of costs and disbursements, but also who the prevailing party is for purposes of such an award.”
Victoria L. Sloan v. Kelly O’Neil, Regina Sabbia, Kerrie Cathcart, Uptown Realty & Management LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Victoria L. Sloan v. Kelly O’Neil, Regina Sabbia, Kerrie Cathcart, Uptown Realty & Management LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This court will only reverse the district court’s prevailing-party determination if the district court “abused its discretion, exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, or based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law.” (quotation omitted).
Maria F. Olson, et al v. James Scott Kent, et al. Defendants, Peoples National Bank of Mora Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Maria F. Olson, et al v. James Scott Kent, et al. Defendants, Peoples National Bank of Mora Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A court abuses its discretion under rule 60.02 when its decision is “against logic and facts on the record,” is “arbitrary or capricious,” or is based on “an erroneous view of the law.” (quotation omitted).
Glendalough Homeowners’ Association v. Jovani Nassar and third party plaintiff, vs. Evermoor Community Association, third party defendant, Community … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Glendalough Homeowners’ Association v. Jovani Nassar and third party plaintiff, vs. Evermoor Community Association, third party defendant, Community … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A district court abuses its discretion if its decision contravenes “logic and facts on the record,” is “arbitrary or capricious,” or is based on “an erroneous view of the law.” d 712, 714 (Minn. App. 2006) (quotation omitted).
Timothy T. Childs, et al v. North River Road Condominium Association Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Timothy T. Childs, et al v. North River Road Condominium Association Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Johnny L. Moore, et al v. Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Johnny L. Moore, et al v. Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A district court abuses its discretion if its decision contravenes “logic and facts on the record,” is “arbitrary or capricious,” or is based on “an erroneous view of the law.” (quotation omitted).
O'Brien v. Dombeck 823 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
O'Brien v. Dombeck 823 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
-15 (Minn.App.2006) (setting forth a “pragmatic analysis” in identifying the prevailing party).