Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite L & H AIRCO, INC. v. Rapistan Corp., 446 N.W.2d 372.

59 citing documents.

Maria Olson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct “are intended to discipline attorneys, not provide a basis for civil liability.” L & H Airco
Patrice V. Nerad, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
And even if Magnus and the law firm had an affirmative duty to disclose his drug use under the rules of professional conduct, which is not an issue before this court, “[a] violation of the Rules of Professional 13 Conduct cannot give rise to a private action against an attorney.” L & H Airco
Steven Lee Mittelstaedt, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See L & H Airco, (advising that the rules “are intended to discipline attorneys, not provide a basis for civil liability”).
William Salgat, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
L & H Airco, Inc. v. Rapistan Corp. , (“Arbitrators have long enjoyed immunity from civil suit.”); Melady v. S. St.
Warren v. Dinter 926 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2019
Steve Dupuis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The general rule is that one party to a transaction has no duty to disclose material facts to the other.” L & H. Airco, (quotation omitted).
Regents of the University of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See, e.g., L & H Airco, (citing the exception but rejecting it in favor of consideration of a lawyer’s ethical duty); Klein v. First Edina Nat’l Bank, 293 Minn. 418, 422, (citing the exception but rejecting it and considering a duty based on the confidential and fiduciary relationship between
Rochester City Lines Co. v. City of Rochester 897 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Rochester City Lines Co. v. City of Rochester 897 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
he be entirely free from bias in fact, if circumstances have arisen which give a bona fide appearance of bias to litigants”); L & H Airco, (“An impression of bias contaminates the decision making process when neutrality .is essential and is not condoned by this court.”); (Popovich, C.J., concurring specially) (“We have encouraged administrative bodies ...
Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund "A", Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. CVS Caremark Corporation, Appellants/Cross-Respondents, Coborn's Incorporated, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, … 850 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 2014
Distinguished Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund "A", Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. CVS Caremark Corporation, Appellants/Cross-Respondents, Coborn's Incorporated, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, … 850 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 2014
Vangelder v. Johnson 827 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Vangelder v. Johnson 827 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
4, 1991) (therapist); L & H Airco, -77 (Minn.1989) (arbitrator).
Williams v. Smith 820 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 2012
Williams v. Smith 820 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 2012
See Caritas Family Servs., d at 287 ; see also L & H Airco, (“An analysis of whether or not a duty of care is owed to a particular plaintiff begs the essential question — whether the plaintiffs interests are entitled to legal protection against the defendant’s conduct.
In re Disciplinary Action Against Montez 812 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 2012
In re Disciplinary Action Against Montez 812 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 2012
See L & H Airco, (concluding that even though the attorney owed an ethical duty to disclose information to a tribunal, his failure to disclose was not actionable fraud upon which his client’s adversaries could sue).
Jane Doe 43C v. Diocese of New Ulm 787 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Jane Doe 43C v. Diocese of New Ulm 787 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
making a representation about Roney that was false.” Yet, appellants urge us to ignore the nondisclosure that underlies the alleged misrepresentation, in their attempt to avoid the rule that “[nondisclosure does not constitute fraud absent a legal or equitable obligation to communicate facts to a particular person [who is] is entitled to the information.” L & H Airco, (quotation omitted).
Driscoll v. STANDARD HARDWARE, INC. 785 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Driscoll v. STANDARD HARDWARE, INC. 785 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The Minnesota Supreme Court “ha[s] rarely addressed that particular theory of fraud.” L & H Airco
Peterka v. Dennis 764 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2009
Peterka v. Dennis 764 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2009
806, 807 (1919); see also L & H Airco, *835 (denying immunity to arbitrator would “chill the willingness of arbitrators to serve”); Stewart, 53 Minn. at 67 , 54 N.W.
Thomas B. Olson & Associates, P.A. v. Leffert, Jay & Polglaze, P.A. 756 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Thomas B. Olson & Associates, P.A. v. Leffert, Jay & Polglaze, P.A. 756 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
L & H Airco, -79 (Minn.1989) (holding that attorney did not have duty to non-clients to investigate arbitrator’s impartiality because of duty to “zealously represent [his] client and resolve all doubts in favor of the client”); -6 (Minn.1981) (holding that attorney who drafted deed conveying
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
Hoyt Properties, Inc. v. Production Resource Group, L.L.C. 716 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Hoyt Properties, Inc. v. Production Resource Group, L.L.C. 716 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
may be liable for fraud.” L & H Airco
Lennartson v. Anoka-Hennepin Independent School District No. 11 662 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2003
Heidbreder v. Carton 645 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2002
Heidbreder v. Carton 645 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2002
Berreman v. West Publishing Co. 615 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Berreman v. West Publishing Co. 615 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See L & H Airco, (recognizing that nondisclosure amounts to fraud only if legal obligation to communicate exists).
Witzman v. Lehrman, Lehrman & Flom 601 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 1999
Witzman v. Lehrman, Lehrman & Flom 601 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 1999
Aaron v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Group 590 N.W.2d 667 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Aaron v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Group 590 N.W.2d 667 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Pirsig, d at 344 ; see, e.g., L & H Airco, (impression of bias arising from one arbitrator’s prior business relationship with one of the parties).
Special Force Ministries v. WCCO Television 584 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Special Force Ministries v. WCCO Television 584 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Smith v. Brutger Companies 569 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1997
Christensen v. Eggen 562 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Christensen v. Eggen 562 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See L & H Airco, (holding professional rules do not provide basis for civil liability).
Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Dain Bosworth Inc. 531 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Dain Bosworth Inc. 531 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Id.; accord L & H Airco, , 378 n. 2 (Minn.1989).
CPJ Enterprises, Inc. v. Gernander 521 N.W.2d 622 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
CPJ Enterprises, Inc. v. Gernander 521 N.W.2d 622 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(lawyer must act with commitment and dedication to *625 client’s interests and with zeal in advocating upon client’s behalf); see also L & H Airco, -79 (Minn.1989) (if attorney owed duty to client’s adversary, this duty necessarily would conflict with duties of zealous representation and loyalty owed to client; therefore party cannot sue adversary’s lawyer for negligence).
Pirsig v. Pleasant Mound Mutual Fire Insurance Co. 512 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Pirsig v. Pleasant Mound Mutual Fire Insurance Co. 512 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
at 340; see also L & H Airco, rehearing denied (Minn. Nov.
M.H. v. Caritas Family Services 488 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 1992

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by