Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. O'Connor & Hannan, 494 N.W.2d 261.

67 citing documents.

Craig A. Reichel v. Wendland Utz, LTD Minn. 2024
Craig A. Reichel v. Wendland Utz, LTD Minn. 2024
First, we have considered the typical malpractice scenario, when an attorney’s alleged negligence in failing to file an action on behalf of the plaintiff “permit[ed] the statute of limitations to operate against [the] plaintiff’s claim.” see also Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. O’Connor & Hannan, –65 (Minn. 1992) (involving a situation when a defendant was found liable because certain defenses were, in the view of the defendant, negligently forfeited).
Wayne E. Hukriede, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
1 See Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. O’Connor & Hannan, d 261, 265 (Minn. 1992) .
Kristen Glaros Hanson, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Motor Freight, Inc. v. O ’Connor & Hannan , – 66 (Minn. 1992) .
Thomas Sullivan, as guardian and conservator for Marc L. Beeman, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Motor Freight, Inc. v. O’Connor & Hannan
Grefe Construction, Inc. v. Double J Concrete & Masonry, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Grefe Construction, Inc. v. Double J Concrete & Masonry, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Motor Freight, Inc. v. O’Connor & Hannan
Guzick v. Kimball 869 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2015
Guzick v. Kimball 869 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2015
Similarly, in Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. O’Connor & Hannan, we stated that “[e]x-pert testimony generally is required to establish a standard of care applicable to an attorney whose conduct is alleged to have been negligent, and further to establish whether the conduct deviated from that standard.”
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Larry S. SEVERSON, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 99363 860 N.W.2d 658 Minn. 2015
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Larry S. SEVERSON, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 99363 860 N.W.2d 658 Minn. 2015
Motor Freight, Inc. v. O’Connor & Hannan
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
Motor Freight v. O’Connor & Hannan, Schmitz, d at 741; -79 (Minn. App. 2009); see also Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., & n.4 (Minn. 2007).
Pond Hollow Homeowners Ass'n v. Ryland Group, Inc. 779 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Pond Hollow Homeowners Ass'n v. Ryland Group, Inc. 779 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Motor Freight, Inc. v. O’Connor & Hannan
In Re Paul W. Abbott Co., Inc. 767 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2009
In Re Paul W. Abbott Co., Inc. 767 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2009
Motor Freight, Inc. v. O’Connor & Hannan
McIntosh County Bank v. Dorsey & Whitney, LLP 745 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 2008
McIntosh County Bank v. Dorsey & Whitney, LLP 745 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 2008
821 , 364 P.2d 685, 687 (1961), and Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. O’Connor & Hannan
Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co. 732 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 2007
Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co. 732 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 2007
Motor Freight v. O’Connor & Hannan, (stating that expert testimony is generally required to establish the standard of care applicable to legal malpractice, whether the attorney deviated from that standard, and whether that deviation caused the plaintiffs injury).
McIntosh County Bank v. Dorsey & Whitney, LLP 726 N.W.2d 108 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
McIntosh County Bank v. Dorsey & Whitney, LLP 726 N.W.2d 108 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Motor Freight, Inc. v. O’Connor & Hannan
Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 711 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 2006
Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 711 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 2006
Motor Freight, Inc. v. O’Connor & Hannan
Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 691 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 691 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Motor Freight, Inc. v. O’Connor & Hannan
Reiling v. City of Eagan 664 N.W.2d 403 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Reiling v. City of Eagan 664 N.W.2d 403 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Motor Freight, Inc. v. O’Connor & Hannan, (citation omitted).
Pine Island Farmers Coop v. Erstad & Riemer, P.A. 649 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 2002
Pine Island Farmers Coop v. Erstad & Riemer, P.A. 649 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 2002
Motor Freight, Inc. v. O’Connor & Hannan, -66 (Minn.1992); Togstad, d at 693 n. 4.
Mullins v. Churchill 616 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Mullins v. Churchill 616 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Cf. Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. O’Connor & Hannan, (stating whether claimant is entitled to treble damages under Minn. Stat. §§ 481.07 , .071 may be submitted to jury if court finds some credible evidence of intent to deceive).
Paidar v. Hughes 615 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 2000
Paidar v. Hughes 615 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 2000
Admiral Merchants Motor Freight v. O’Connor & Hannan
Gramling v. MEMORIAL BLOOD CENTERS 601 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Gramling v. MEMORIAL BLOOD CENTERS 601 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. O’Connor & Hannan
Francis v. Piper 597 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Francis v. Piper 597 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
at 5-6 (determining third party was not an intended beneficiary and not reaching multi-factor analysis); Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. O’Connor & Hannan, (determining third party may be an intended beneficiary and not reaching multi-factor analysis); Goldberger v. Kaplan, Strangis & Kaplan, P.A., (determining third party was not an intended beneficiary before considering two factors of multi-factor analysis), rev
Baker v. Ploetz 597 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Baker v. Ploetz 597 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
“Whether an attorney-client relationship exists is usually a question of fact dependent upon the communications and circumstances.” Admiral Merchants Motor Freight Inc. v. O’Connor & Hannan
Vetter v. Security Continental Insurance Co. 567 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 1997
Vetter v. Security Continental Insurance Co. 567 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 1997
“On an appeal from summary judgment, we ask two questions: (1) whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and (2) whether the lower courts erred in their application of the law.” State by Cooper v. French, 460 NW.2d 2, 4 (Minn.1990); see also Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. O’Connor & Hannan
FIRST BANK OF MINNESOTA v. Olson 557 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
FIRST BANK OF MINNESOTA v. Olson 557 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett, (proximate cause); Admiral Merchants *624 Motor Freight v. O’Connor & Hannan, (damages).
Lickteig v. Alderson, Ondov, Leonard & Sween, P.A. 556 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1996
Lickteig v. Alderson, Ondov, Leonard & Sween, P.A. 556 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1996
To state a claim for legal malpractice, one must show that the “defendant acted negligently or in breach of contract.” Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, (emphasis added); Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. O’Connor & Hannan
Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Bunde 555 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Bunde 555 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
see Admiral Merchants Motor Freight Inc. v. O’Connor & Hannan
Vierkant Ex Rel. Johnson v. AMCO Insurance Co. 543 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1996