Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cook v. Connolly, 366 N.W.2d 287.

29 citing documents.

Gibson v. Theut 438 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Vene Lor, as conservator and natural mother of Ricky Yang, and Vene Lor, individually, Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“Because procedurally the child acts through its [representative] in retaining legal counsel and in maintaining the cause of action should not obscure the reality that the child is the attorney’s client.”).
Hauschildt v. Beckingham 668 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Hauschildt v. Beckingham 668 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
290 n. 2 (Minn.1985) (quotations omitted).
Talley Ex Rel. Talley v. Portland Residence, Inc. 582 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Talley Ex Rel. Talley v. Portland Residence, Inc. 582 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See, (legal malpractice action brought by 18-year-old against attorney who represented her 10 years earlier in personal injury action brought on her behalf by her mother).
Richie v. Paramount Pictures Corp. 532 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett 490 N.W.2d 108 Minn. 1992
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett 490 N.W.2d 108 Minn. 1992
An attorney’s error in judgment will not create liability if it is “within the bounds of an honest exercise of professional judgment.”
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
Generally an attorney’s mere error in judgment, however, does not create liability if it is “within the bounds of an honest exercise of professional judgment.”
Johnson v. Taylor 435 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Johnson v. Taylor 435 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
the supreme court stated that a plaintiffs malpractice action “is an independent cause of action, not subsumed in the plaintiffs personal injury action.” Id.
Midtaune v. Burns 434 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Midtaune v. Burns 434 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Summary judgment is an appropriate procedure to “relieve the court system of the burden and expense of unfounded litigation.” (citing Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482 , 70 N.W.
Gulbranson v. Gulbranson 408 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Gulbranson v. Gulbranson 408 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Markert v. Behm 394 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Markert v. Behm 394 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
*242 , 290 n. 2 (Minn.1985) ().
Ouellette Ex Rel. Ouellette v. Subak 391 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1986
Ouellette Ex Rel. Ouellette v. Subak 391 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1986
See, (no liability for error within bounds of an honest exercise of professional judgment); Glenna v. Sullivan, 310 Minn. 162, 169 , -73 (1976) (good faith judgment, even if error, not deemed malpractice).
Koski v. Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Co. 386 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Koski v. Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Co. 386 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ouellette Ex Rel. Ouellette v. Subak 379 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ouellette Ex Rel. Ouellette v. Subak 379 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(“[W]e believe the well-established rule protecting a professional against honest errors in judgment needs to be carefully considered.”) See also JIG II, 429 G-S (2d ed. 1974).
Marriage of Lindsey v. Lindsey 369 N.W.2d 26 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Lindsey v. Lindsey 369 N.W.2d 26 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Cook v. Con *30 nolly, , (Minn.1985)
Spannaus v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, & Lindgren, Ltd. 368 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Spannaus v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, & Lindgren, Ltd. 368 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
When deciding a motion for summary judgment in a malpractice case, the trial court must consider “the well-established rule protecting a professional against honest errors in judgment.”