Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., 417 N.W.2d 619.

131 citing documents.

JayCee Cooper v. USA Powerlifting, USA Powerlifting Minnesota, on Related Appeal ... Minn. 2025
JayCee Cooper v. USA Powerlifting, USA Powerlifting Minnesota, on Related Appeal ... Minn. 2025
Hoover, d at 542; see Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., Inc., (recognizing that “we have adopted the McDonnell Douglas analysis as an aid to resolving cases claiming disparate treatment” under the MHRA).
A25-0341 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
E.g., Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., 628-30 (Minn. 1988).
Samantha Wakasugi, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“When a substantial causative factor entering into the decision to discharge an employee is based upon gender or a status of pregnancy, the [Act] affords the employee remedies against the employer including an action for the recovery of damages, injunctive relief, and costs and attorney fees.” Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co.
A23-0621 JayCee Cooper v. USA Powerlifting, USA Powerlifting Minnesota, on Related ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A23-0621 JayCee Cooper v. USA Powerlifting, USA Powerlifting Minnesota, on Related ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Cf. Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., Inc., -27 (Minn. 1988) (holding in employment context that defendant may not avoid liability upon proof of “mixed motive” if defendant’s decision was motived in part by plaintiff’s protected status).
Athena 2004, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
provide a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the fee award.” Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., (quotation omitted).
Court of Appeals Gildea, C.J. Concurring, Chutich, Thissen, JJ. Lori Dowling Hanson, Minn. 2022
ischarge claim.”); McGrath v. TCF Bank Sav., FSB , d 365, 366 (Minn. 1993) (clarifying that in a whistleblower case applying McDonnell Douglas, an employer may still be liable even if it provides a legitimate reason for terminating an employee “if an illegitimate reason ‘more likely than not’ motivated the discharge decision” (quoting Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., )).
Moore v. City of New Brighton 932 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Moore v. City of New Brighton 932 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Hoover , d at 542 ; Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co. , , 623 (Minn. 1988).
Greg Peterson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(citing Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., , 627 (Minn. 1988) ).
Commissioner Of Transportation v. Krause 925 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 2019
Commissioner Of Transportation v. Krause 925 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 2019
We followed Hensley and Specialized Tours in Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co. , , 628-30 (Minn. 1988), an employment case.
Nicole LaPoint, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J. A. K. and J. M. S., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(citing Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co. , ).
LaFayette Temple, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See, e.g. , Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co.
Shane A. Kennedy, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co. , n.10 (Minn. 1988) (“Hours that are not properly billed to one’s client also are not properly billed to one’s adversary.”).
Sanchez v. Dahlke Trailer Sales, Inc. 897 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2017
Lapoint v. Orthodontics 892 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 2017
Lapoint v. Orthodontics 892 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 2017
1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), an anal *511 ysis we endorsed in, among other cases, Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., -24 (Minn. 1988).
In re: Guardianship and Conservatorship of Carolyn H. Jemison. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re: Guardianship and Conservatorship of Carolyn H. Jemison. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co.
David B. Markle v. Metro Metals Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
David B. Markle v. Metro Metals Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., -30 (Minn. 1988) (stating that, when reasonableness of requested attorney fees is challenged, district court must provide a “‘concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the fee award’” (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 1941 (1983)).
650 North Main Association v. Frauenshuh, Inc. (Territorial Springs Riverview, LLC, Frauenshuh Sweeney, LLC), Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, Doe … 885 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
650 North Main Association v. Frauenshuh, Inc. (Territorial Springs Riverview, LLC, Frauenshuh Sweeney, LLC), Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, Doe … 885 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co.
In re the Conservatorship of: Merritt Elmer Johnson, Protected Person. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Conservatorship of: Merritt Elmer Johnson, Protected Person. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co.
Mary Jo Delaney v. Cragun Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mary Jo Delaney v. Cragun Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co.
Greg Peterson, Souphanny Dean, Co-Appellant, Brian Rogge v. City of Richfield, Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Greg Peterson, Souphanny Dean, Co-Appellant, Brian Rogge v. City of Richfield, Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
.”); Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., (“As the result of the substantial similarities existing between Title VII and [the MHRA], we have frequently applied principles which have evolved in the adjudication of claims under the federal act, and, specifically we have adopted the McDonnell Douglas analysis as an aid to resolving cases cla
Charles Pearson v. Rohn Industries, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Charles Pearson v. Rohn Industries, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., -27 (Minn. 1988).
Nicole LaPoint v. Family Orthodontics, P. A. 872 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Nicole LaPoint v. Family Orthodontics, P. A. 872 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
see also Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., Inc., (holding that the protected trait must be “a substantial causative factor”).
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
“[W]hen the reasonableness of the ‘hours expended’ component of the fee claim is challenged, the [district] court should scrutinize it, and either make findings or otherwise concisely explain why it felt the hours claimed are reasonable or unreasonable.” Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co.
In re the Matter of: C. O. v. John and Jackie Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Matter of: C. O. v. John and Jackie Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., Inc.
Cameron Court Homeowners Association v. Ngozichukwa Akubuike Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Cameron Court Homeowners Association v. Ngozichukwa Akubuike Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., Inc., -29 (Minn. 1988) (quotations omitted).
George E. Antrim, III, PLLC v. Samar Sabri a/k/a Samar M. Tomala a/k/a Samar Meri Tomala a/k/a Samar … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
George E. Antrim, III, PLLC v. Samar Sabri a/k/a Samar M. Tomala a/k/a Samar Meri Tomala a/k/a Samar … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., see also Vandeputte v. Soderholm, 298 Minn. 505, 511, (“[T]he determination of the reasonable value of legal services involves a question of fact to be answered in the light of the peculiar circumstances of each individual case.” (quotation omitted)); Kittler, 295 Minn.
State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation v. Debra Jean Johnson, a/k/a Debra J. Johnson, Great Lakes … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation v. Debra Jean Johnson, a/k/a Debra J. Johnson, Great Lakes … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
rtion, however, the district court plainly stated that its determination regarding attorney fees took into consideration “all of the applicable circumstances and factors.” The district court, being most familiar with the pertinent aspects of respondents’ case, “is in the best position to evaluate the reasonableness of requested attorney fees.” Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., Inc.
State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation v. Great River Resources, LLC, Vermillion State Bank, Below. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation v. Great River Resources, LLC, Vermillion State Bank, Below. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co.
County of Dakota v. Cameron 839 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2013
County of Dakota v. Cameron 839 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2013
The lodestar method first requires a district court to “determine the number of hours ‘reasonably expended’ on the litigation” and multiply that number “ ‘by a reasonable hourly rate.’ ” Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 , 103 S.Ct.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by