Cited by

of Bus., Inc., – 8 This requirement—that the respondents had to show that they were bringing the lawsuit to protect the generalized interests of Minnesota consumers —was only presented to and addressed by the district court in relation to respondents’ post-trial motion for attorne

o f Bus., Inc. , -22 (Minn. App. 2001) (determining that law suit benefited the public when a school “promoted its sports-medicine-technician program through television advertisements and sales presentations ” and “[b]ut for [plaintiffs ’] lawsuit, an indefinite class of potential consumers might have been injured in the same manner as were [the plaintiffs]” ), aff’d, with Kivel v. Wealth Spring Mortg.

of Bus., Inc., -30 (Minn.2003).

of Bus., Inc., (concluding that plaintiffs’ successful prosecution of their subdivision 3a claims benefited the public and holding that plaintiffs were therefore entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees under subdivision 3a).

3a, “benefitted the public as required by Ly v. Nystrom.”

Of Business, Inc., aff 'd

tates that a party may make an offer of judgment for “a specified sum of money, with costs and disbursements then accrued,” but it does not define “costs and disbursements.” In Collins v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc., we allowed recovery of statutory attorney fees when the Rule 68 offer stated a lump sum of $200,000, “together with any costs and disbursements allowed by the District Court.”