Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett, 490 N.W.2d 108.

177 citing documents.

Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc., … Minn. 2026
Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc., … Minn. 2026
(emphasis added) (citing Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett, (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Larry Kenneth Alexander v. Tyson's Towing and Transport LLC, GSIC Southview LLC, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Larry Kenneth Alexander v. Tyson's Towing and Transport LLC, GSIC Southview LLC, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett
In Re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett, n.1 (Minn. 1992).
Craig A. Reichel v. Wendland Utz, LTD Minn. 2024
Craig A. Reichel v. Wendland Utz, LTD Minn. 2024
Still, “a professional must use reasonable care to obtain the information needed to exercise his or her professional judgment, and failure to use such reasonable care would be negligence, even if done in good faith.” Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett
681 Properties, LLP, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett , n.1 (Minn. 1992); see also is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”).
Wayne E. Hukriede, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“The doctrine of superseding cause recognizes that although an actor’s negligent actions may have put the plaintiff in the position to be injured, and therefore contributed to the injury, the actual injury may have been caused by an intervening event[, which] prevents the original negligent actor from being liable for the final injury.” Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett
Karmen Michelle Ingersoll, as Trustee for the next of kin of Thomas Wade Ingersoll, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett
Mary Ellen Spinler, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett
Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc. 929 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2019
Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc. 929 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2019
Larsen v. Yelle , 310 Minn. 521 , , 844 (1976) ; see Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett , , 112-13 (Minn. 1992) (noting the standard of care for lawyers in a malpractice action); Atwater Creamery Co. v. W. Nat'l Mut.
Minn. 2018
See Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett, –14 (Minn. 1992).
Galyna Anderson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[A] professional must use reasonable care to obtain the info rmation needed to exercise his or her professional judgment, and failure to use such reasonable care would be negligence, even if done in good faith.” Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett
John Doe 101, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett, n.1 (Minn. 1992); (noting that the district court may take appropriate measures to ensure that assertion of the Fifth Amendment right against self -incrimination does not unfairly prejudice an adverse party), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Guzick v. Kimball 869 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2015
Guzick v. Kimball 869 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2015
See Brown-Wilbert, d at 218 (stating that “expert testimony is generally required”) (emphasis added); see also Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett, (stating that, for the element of breach of duty, expert testimony is “[generally” required, “unless the conduct can be evaluated by a jury in the absence of expert' testimony”).
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
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett, (quotation omitted).
Ptacek v. Earthsoils, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 535 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ptacek v. Earthsoils, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 535 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The role of an appellate court when reviewing a grant of summary judgment “is to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the [district] court erred in its application of the law.” Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett
Gallagher v. BNSF Railway Co. 829 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Gallagher v. BNSF Railway Co. 829 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
The role of an appellate court when re *89 viewing a grant of summary judgment “is to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the [district] court erred in its application of the law.” Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett
Anderson v. Christopherson 816 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2012
Anderson v. Christopherson 816 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2012
at 401 (quoting Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett, ).
LaMont v. Independent School District 728 814 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2012
LaMont v. Independent School District 728 814 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2012
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett
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
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett
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
See, e.g., Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett, ("In a professional malpractice action, the plaintiff must present evidence of the applicable standard of care, and that the standard of care was breached.”) (citations omitted); Riño v. Mead, 55 P.3d 13, 20 (Wyo.2002) ("[T]he standards as to professional malpractice that we have formerly adopted for
Bjerke v. Johnson 727 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Stuedemann v. Nose 713 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Stuedemann v. Nose 713 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett
Noske v. Friedberg 713 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Noske v. Friedberg 713 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
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
See Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett, (“[A] professional must use reasonable care to obtain the information needed to exercise his or her professional judgment, and failure to use such reasonable care would be negligence, even if done in good faith.”); Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, (per curia
Carlson v. Friday 694 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Carlson v. Friday 694 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett
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
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett, (quotation omitted).
State Ex Rel. Department of Natural Resources v. Hess 684 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2004
State Ex Rel. Department of Natural Resources v. Hess 684 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2004
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett
Ingram v. Syverson 674 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Ingram v. Syverson 674 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett
Thommes v. Milwaukee Insurance Co. 641 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 2002
Thommes v. Milwaukee Insurance Co. 641 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 2002
v. Comm’r of Revenue, Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett
In Re the Trusteeship of the Trust of Williams 631 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2001