Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A., 520 N.W.2d 406.

38 citing documents.

Michael L Reger, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In order to prevail on a legal-malpractice claim, Reger needed to prove “[(1)] the existence of an attorney-client relationship; [(2)] acts amounting to negligence or breach of contract; [(3)] that such acts were the proximate cause of [Reger]’s damages; and [(4)] that, but for defendant’s conduct, [Reger] would have been successful in the action.” Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A.
Craig A. Reichel v. Wendland Utz, LTD Minn. 2024
Craig A. Reichel v. Wendland Utz, LTD Minn. 2024
Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A., (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Craig Stevenson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A., -11 (Minn. 1994).
Galyna Anderson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law if the non-moving party completely fails to prove an element that is essential to the non-moving party’s case.” Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett , P.A.
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
Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A.
Ryan Contracting Company v. O'Neill & Murphy, LLP 868 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ryan Contracting Company v. O'Neill & Murphy, LLP 868 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
This requires that we assess the merits of the case underlying a malpractice action to determine if there was a “win[n]able case-within-a-case.” Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A., d 406, 409 (Minn. 1994) (quotation omitted).
Thomas A. Foster & Associates, Ltd. v. Paulson 699 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Thomas A. Foster & Associates, Ltd. v. Paulson 699 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A.
Urban Ex Rel. Urban v. American Legion Post 184 695 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Urban Ex Rel. Urban v. American Legion Post 184 695 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A., -11 (Minn.1994).
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
Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A.
Hauschildt v. Beckingham 686 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2004
Hauschildt v. Beckingham 686 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2004
See Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A., -10 (Minn.1994).
Miklas v. Parrott 684 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 2004
Kuechle v. Life's Companion P.C.A., Inc. 653 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Kuechle v. Life's Companion P.C.A., Inc. 653 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A.
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
See Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A., Blue Water Corp., d at 282 .
Pine Island Farmers Coop v. Erstad & Riemer, P.A. 636 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Pine Island Farmers Coop v. Erstad & Riemer, P.A. 636 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A.
Bebo v. Delander 632 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Bebo v. Delander 632 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A.
Flynn v. American Home Products Corp. 627 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Flynn v. American Home Products Corp. 627 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A., -11 (Minn.1994).
Paidar v. Hughes 615 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 2000
Paidar v. Hughes 615 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 2000
See Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A., Admiral, d at 267 .
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
at 282 ; see also Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A.
Pollock-Halvarson v. McGuire 576 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Pollock-Halvarson v. McGuire 576 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A.
Benson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 561 N.W.2d 530 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Benson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 561 N.W.2d 530 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(burden of proving falsity is on plaintiff); Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A., (“The elements of defamation require the plaintiff to prove that a statement was false * * *.”); see also Jeffries v. Metro-Mark, Inc., 45 F.3d 258, 261 (8th Cir.1995) (rejecting plaintiffs argument that Minnesota law places burden of proving truth on defendant and holding that the burden of proving f
Richie v. Paramount Pictures Corp. 544 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1996
Richie v. Paramount Pictures Corp. 544 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1996
In Minnesota, the elements of defamation “require the plaintiff to prove that a statement was false, that it was communicated to someone besides the plaintiff, and that it tended to harm the plaintiffs reputation and to lower him in the estimation of the community.” Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A.