DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Blue Water Corp., Inc. v. O'TOOLE, 336 N.W.2d 279.

77 citing documents.

  • Patrice V. Nerad, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    ce of an attorney -client relationship; (2) acts constituting negligence or breach of contract; (3) that such acts were the proximate cause of the plaintiff ’s damages; (4) that but for [attorney-]defendant ’s conduct the plaintiff would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the action.” Antone, d at 335 (alteration in original) (quoting Blue Water Corp. v. O’Toole, ).
  • Mark Rodgers, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    (citing Blue Water Corp. v. O’Toole, ).
  • Brandow Properties, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    malpractice, a plaintiff must prove four elements: “(1) the existence of an attorney -client relationship; (2) acts constituting negligence or breach of contract; (3) that such acts were the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages; and (4) that but for defendant ’s conduct the plaintiff wo uld have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the action.” Blue Water Corp. v. O’Toole
  • Christopher Gary Baylor, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    Blue Water Corp. v. O’Toole
  • Jeffrey J. Boelter, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    See Blue Water Corp. v. O’Toole
  • Larson Ventures, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    (alteration in original) (quoting Blue Water Corp., Inc. v. O ’Toole, ).
  • Minn. 2018
    attorney -client relationship; (2) acts constituting negligence or breach of contract; (3) that such acts we re the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages; [and] (4) that but for the [attorney-]defendant’s conduct the plaintiff would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the action.” Antone, d at 334 (first alteration added) (citing Blue Water Corp. v. O’Toole , ).
  • Security Bank & Trust Co. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 897 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • Security Bank & Trust Co. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 897 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Blue Water Corp. v. O’Toole
  • James Leach, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    a legal - malpractice claim, a plaintiff must show: “(1) the existence of an attorney -client relationship; (2) acts constituting negligence or breach of contract; (3) that such acts were the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages; [and] (4) that but for defendant’s conduct the plaintiff would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the action.” Blue Water Corp. v. O’Toole, 1 The claim fails if the plaintiff fails to establish all four elements.
  • Ryan Contracting Company v. O'Neill & Murphy, LLP 883 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 2016
  • Ryan Contracting Company v. O'Neill & Murphy, LLP 883 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 2016
    n for legal malpractice the plaintiff must show: “(1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) acts constituting negligence or breach of contract; (3) that such acts were the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages; and (4) that but for defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the action.” Blue Water Corp., Inc. v. O’Toole, -82 (Minn. 1983).
  • Valley Paving, Inc. v. Stanley Consultants, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • Valley Paving, Inc. v. Stanley Consultants, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • 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
    (applying four malpractice elements to analysis of negligence-based 7 malpractice claim).
  • Guzick v. Kimball 869 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2015
  • Guzick v. Kimball 869 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2015
    Kimball argued that Guzick was required to use an expert to establish all four elements of a prima facie case of legal malpractice: the existence of an attorney-client relationship, acts constituting negligence, proximate causation, and but-for causation, see Blue Water Corp. v. O’Toole, and that for each of those elements, Guzick’s disclosure failed to comply with subdivision 4, *46 which requires disclosure of “the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify, and a summary of
  • McGrann Shea Carnival Straughn & Lamb, Chartered v. Clinton Roberts Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • McGrann Shea Carnival Straughn & Lamb, Chartered v. Clinton Roberts Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    is wholly insufficient as a matter of law.” (reversing jury verdict finding legal malpractice and granting attorney JNOV because “jury’s finding of causation [of damages by attorney’s negligence] rested on impermissible conjecture”).
  • TC/American Monorail, Inc. v. Custom Conveyor Corp. 822 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • TC/American Monorail, Inc. v. Custom Conveyor Corp. 822 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    ANALYSIS On appeal from a motion for JMOL, “this court determines whether there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the verdict.” Bolander v. Bolander, 70S N.W.2d 529, 545 (Minn.App.2005) (citing Blue Water Corp., Inc. v. O’Toole, ).
  • In Re Estate of Butler 782 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • In Re Estate of Butler 782 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    ANALYSIS On appeal from a posttrial motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), “this court determines whether there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the verdict.” (citing Blue Water Corp. v. O’Toole, ), revieio dismissed (Minn. Nov.
  • Christians v. Grant Thornton, LLP 733 N.W.2d 803 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • Christians v. Grant Thornton, LLP 733 N.W.2d 803 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    Blue Water Corp., Inc. v. O’Toole
  • Antone v. Mirviss 720 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2006
  • Antone v. Mirviss 720 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2006
    which relief can be granted, a plaintiff must allege “(1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) acts constituting negligence or breach of contract; (3) that such acts were the proximate cause of the plaintiffs damages; (4) that but for [attorney-jdefendant’s conduct the plaintiff would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the action.” Blue Water Corp. v. O’Toole
  • 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
    ctice, a plaintiff traditionally must show four elements: “(1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) acts constituting negligence or breach of contract; (3) that such acts were the proximate cause of the plaintiffs damages; [and] (4) that but for defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the action.” Blue Water Corp. v. O’Toole
  • Bolander v. Bolander 703 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • Bolander v. Bolander 703 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    Blue Water Corp., Inc., v. O’Toole
  • Antone v. Mirviss 694 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • Antone v. Mirviss 694 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    ice action, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to show “(1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) acts constituting negligence or breach of contract; (3) that such acts were the proximate cause of the plaintiffs damages; and (4) that but for defendant’s conduct the plaintiff would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the action.” Blue Water Corp. v. O’Toole
  • Noske v. Friedberg 670 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2003
  • Noske v. Friedberg 670 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2003
    ts a plaintiff must allege in order to state a claim are: “(1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) acts constitut *743 ing negligence or breach of contract; (3) that such acts were the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages; (4) that but for defendant’s conduct the plaintiff would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the action.” Blue Water Corp. v. O’Toole
  • Noske v. Friedberg 656 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • Noske v. Friedberg 656 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    Blue Water Corp. v. O’Toole, (stating legal-malpractice elements); Wick v. Widdell, 276 Minn. 51, 53-54 , (stating burden of proof for civil actions).
  • 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
    4 See Ross v. Briggs & Morgan, Blue Water Corp. v. O’Toole
  • Baker v. Amtrak National Railroad Passenger 588 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • Baker v. Amtrak National Railroad Passenger 588 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    Blue Water Corp. v. O’Toole
  • Rohricht v. O'HARE 586 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • Rohricht v. O'HARE 586 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    Blue Water Corp. v. O’Toole
  • 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
    29, 1991); (recognizing Fiedler simply applied traditional rule of “but for” causation to different fact situation); see, e.g., Blue Water Corp. v. O’Toole, (omitting analysis of “case-within-a-case” element).
  • Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A. 520 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1994
  • Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A. 520 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1994
    Blue Water Corp. v. O’Toole
  • Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett 476 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett 476 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    Blue Water Corp. v. O’Toole