Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Schmitz v. RINKE, NOONAN, 783 N.W.2d 733.

40 citing documents.

James W. Honcik, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Schmitz v. Rinke , Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff & Hobbs, Ltd., rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Mark A. VanGelder, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
7 Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff & Hobbs, Ltd., (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Accredited Electrical Solutions, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
n.9 (Minn. 2009); see also Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff & Hobbs, Ltd., rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Steven Lee Mittelstaedt, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
ted in Mittelstaedt I, because Mittelstaedt’s claim involves a transactional matter, the fourth element “reads ‘that but for the defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable result in the underlying transaction than the result obtained.’” Mittelstaedt I, d at 860 n.8 (quoting Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff & Hobbs, Ltd., rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Belle Plaine MHP, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
When reviewing the denial of a motion for summary judgment, “[a]ppellate courts generally review de novo whether the district court erred in its 11 application of law.” Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff & Hobbs, Ltd. , rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Hodan Dualeh, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Grp., LLC, cf. Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff & Hobbs, Ltd. , (holding denial of summary judgment based on question of law is within scope of review on appeal following jury trial), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Brandow Properties, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
court granted summary judgment to respondents based on the fourth element—that, but for the alleged negligence, the plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable result.1 “When applying the ‘but for’ test [in a legal-malpractice case], we must envision what would have occurred but for the negligent conduct.” Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff & Hobbs, Ltd., (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Everest Stables, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff & Hobbs, Ltd., review denied (Minn. Sept.
Mark R. Krampf, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-19 (Minn. 2009) (holding that, after a case has been tr ied to a jury, the earlier deni al of a motion for summary judgment is not properly within the scope of review on appeal from the judgment); Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff and Hobbs, Ltd., d 733, 744 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Alan Lee Cimbura, Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff and Hobbs, Ltd. , , review denied (Minn. Sept.
Fr. William Graham, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff & Hobbs, Ltd., (distinguishing Bahr and holding that district court’s denial of summary -judgment motion is within appellate court’s scope of r eview where denial is based on question of law rather than presence of material disputed facts) , review denied (Minn. Sept.
Twin Town Properties, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff & Hobbs, Ltd., review denied (Minn. Sep.
Ashlee Kay Sames, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
ment appellant’s d efamation claim because the statements were nonactionable opinions.6 “As a threshold matter, we must determine whether the district court’s denial of summary judgment is within our scope of review, since matters outside the scope of review are not properly considered by appellate courts.” Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Koriff & Hobbs, Ltd. , review denied (Minn. Sept.
Scott J. Zimmer, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
plaintiff must satisfy four elements: “(1) an attorne y-client relationship; (2) acts constituting negligence or breach of contract; (3) that such acts proximately caused the 6 plaintiff’s damages; and (4) that but for the defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable result in the und erlying transaction than the result obtained.” Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, Ltd. , review denied (Minn. Sept.
Galyna Anderson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff & Hobbs, Ltd., (quotations and emphasis omitted) (citation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
William P. Brady, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-19 (Minn. 2009); Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff and Hobbs, Ltd.
Mary A. Zirbes v. Meshbesher and Spence, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mary A. Zirbes v. Meshbesher and Spence, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff & Hobbs, Ltd., -40 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Joel Wells v. Rick E. Mattox Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Joel Wells v. Rick E. Mattox Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff & Hobbs, Ltd., -40 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Valley Paving, Inc. v. Stanley Consultants, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Valley Paving, Inc. v. Stanley Consultants, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The district court compared Valley Paving’s damages to the damages alleged in two professional-negligence cases, Christians, d at 803, and Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff & Hobbs, Ltd., d 733, 741 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Martin Bell v. Leonard Street and Deinard Professional Association Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Martin Bell v. Leonard Street and Deinard Professional Association Minn. Ct. App. 2016
an attorney-client relationship; (2) acts constituting negligence or breach of contract; (3) that such acts proximately caused the plaintiff's damages; and (4) that but for the defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable result in the underlying transaction than the result obtained.” Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff & Hobbs, Ltd., review denied (Minn. Sept.
Steven Abrahamson, Relators v. The St. Louis County School District, Independent School District No. 2142, Office of Administrative … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Steven Abrahamson, Relators v. The St. Louis County School District, Independent School District No. 2142, Office of Administrative … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff & Hobbs, Ltd., d 733, 743–44 (Minn. App. 2010) (“[M]atters outside the scope of review are not properly considered by appellate courts.”), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A. v. Gene Rechtzigel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A. v. Gene Rechtzigel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff & Hobbs, Ltd., review denied (Minn. Sept.
Kenneth A. Roseland v. Joseph A. Wentzell, Attorney at Law, Richard L. Kusick, and Roseland Acres, LLC, third … 864 N.W.2d 356 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kenneth A. Roseland v. Joseph A. Wentzell, Attorney at Law, Richard L. Kusick, and Roseland Acres, LLC, third … 864 N.W.2d 356 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“If the affidavits contain ‘nothing more than broad and conclusory statements as to causation,’ they are legally insufficient to satisfy the professional-malpractice statute.” Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, (quoting Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc., (applying Minn. Stat. § 145.682)), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Marian v. Swanson v. Terrence K. Swanson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Marian v. Swanson v. Terrence K. Swanson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Schmitz v. 4 Rinke, Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff & Hobbs, Ltd., d 733, 744 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Gary Carlson v. Ray Barta Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Gary Carlson v. Ray Barta Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff, & Hobbs, Ltd., review denied (Minn. Sept.
Timothy Guzick, as Personal Representative of the Estate of George J. Nyberg and as Trustee of the George … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Timothy Guzick, as Personal Representative of the Estate of George J. Nyberg and as Trustee of the George … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See, e.g., Jerry’s Enters., d at 817; Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff & Hobbs, Ltd., review denied (Minn. Sept.
In the matter of the Petition of Melrose Community, LLC for a revision of the legal descriptions reflected … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the matter of the Petition of Melrose Community, LLC for a revision of the legal descriptions reflected … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
8 Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff & Hobbs, Ltd., (“[M]atters outside the scope of review are not properly considered by appellate courts.”); see also Minn. R. Civ.
City of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Police Relief Ass'n 800 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
City of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Police Relief Ass'n 800 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
P. 103.04; see also Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff & Hobbs, Ltd., (holding that summary-judgment denials based on legal determinations are within scope of review), review denied (Minn. Sept.