Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Buscher v. MONTAG DEVELOPMENT, INC., 770 N.W.2d 199.

21 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Buscher v. Montag Dev., Inc.
Marjorie Schroeder, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Buscher v. Montag Dev., Inc., (stating that claims based on “mere assertion of error” that are unsupported by argument or legal authority are 14 waived), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
Charles Ward, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Buscher v. Montag Dev., Inc., -12 (Minn. App. 2009) (explaining that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to award costs associated with a motion).
Lorob Properties LLC, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Buscher v. Montag Dev., Inc.
Jacques Lafrenier, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Buscher v. Montag Dev., Inc., (applying the abuse-of-discretion standard to sanctions under rule 11.03); (applying the abuse- of-discretion standard to sanctions under Minn. Stat. § 549.211).
In re the SUPERVISED Estate of Nancy Eileen Flatgard, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Buscher v. Montag Dev., Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
TestResources, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
15, 1994); Buscher v. Montag Dev., Inc., - 10 (Minn. App. 2009), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Matter of Michael Wartman, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Buscher v. Montag Dev., Inc., (citing State by Humphrey v. Mod.
Town of West Lakeland, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In Buscher v. Montag Development, Inc. , the dist rict court imposed a monetary sanction on attorneys pursuant to rules 11 and 56 of the ru les of civil procedure and, in addition, its inherent authority.
Eric John Blehr, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Buscher v. Montag Dev., Inc. , (“The district court is permitted to tax costs for pretrial preparation time.”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
A20-0508 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
P. 11.03 (requiring the same); see also Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 50, 111 S. Ct. 2123, 2136 (1991) (requiring due process in imposing sanction of attorney fees under inherent powers and in making requis ite bad -faith finding); Buscher v. Montag Dev., Inc. , (stating due process “requires that the parties and attorneys receive notice of such potential sanctions and a hearing” (quotation omitted)).
Franz J. Metzger, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See, e.g., Collins v. Waconia Dodge, Inc., -46 (Minn. App. 2011); Buscher v. Montag Dev., Inc., Radloff, d at 159.
A17-0297 A17-0059 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Buscher v. Montag Dev., Inc., (“Due process requires that the parties and attorneys receive notice of such potential sanctions and a hearing.” (quotation omitted)); Johnson, d at 519 (“[The] ‘safe- harbor’ provision is intended to give the offending party time to withdraw the improper papers or otherwise rectify
Dustin Ray George Dittmar v. George Andrew Karels Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Dustin Ray George Dittmar v. George Andrew Karels Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In Buscher v. Montag Dev., Inc., this court affirmed an award of more than $10,000 in expert-witness fees when the district court granted summary judgment to a defendant in a tort (mold-infiltration) action that was barred by the statute of limitations.
CSM Equities, LLC v. Woodland Village Investments Limited Partnership Minn. Ct. App. 2016
CSM Equities, LLC v. Woodland Village Investments Limited Partnership Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Buscher v. Montag Dev., Inc., –10 (Minn. App. 2009) (affirming the district court’s award of expert witness fees even though there was no trial because “respondents were required to do investigative trial preparation in order to make dispositive motions”).
Glendalough Homeowners' Association v. Jovani Nassar, and third party v. Evermoor Community Association, third party Community Development, Inc., … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Glendalough Homeowners' Association v. Jovani Nassar, and third party v. Evermoor Community Association, third party Community Development, Inc., … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The district court is permitted to tax costs for pretrial preparation time.” Buscher v. Montag Dev., Inc., review denied (Minn. Oct.
Peoplenet Communications Corp. v. Baillon Ventures, LLC 781 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Peoplenet Communications Corp. v. Baillon Ventures, LLC 781 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
1 (2008); see also Minn. Stat. § 357.25 (2008) (permitting allowance of expert-witness “fees or compensation”); Buscher v. Montag Dev., Inc., -10 (Minn.App.2009) (permitting award of expert-witness fees to party that prevailed on summary judgment).