Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Gilchrist v. Perl, 387 N.W.2d 412.

26 citing documents.

Steven Lee Mittelstaedt, et al., Minn. 2022
210, 212– 13 (Minn. 1899) (establishing fee forfeiture as a remedy for breach of fiduciary duty)
Merchant & Gould P.C., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Hearing Associates, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(discussing fee forfeiture in context of attorn ey’s fiduciary duty to client).
Michael A. Knight v. Sean K. McGinity 868 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michael A. Knight v. Sean K. McGinity 868 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Davies & Davies Agency, (agreeing with district court that no evidence in record showed that refusal to make admissions was unreasonable or in bad faith); –19 (Minn. 1986) (concluding that sanctions against defendants were warranted where their “answer was vexatious, and defendants ha[d] offered no good reason for their failure to admit”).
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. 784 N.W.2d 220 Minn. 2010
Commercial Associates, Inc. v. Work Connection, Inc. 712 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Commercial Associates, Inc. v. Work Connection, Inc. 712 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Gilchrist v. Perl, *779 (Perl III).
Baker v. Ploetz 616 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2000
Baker v. Ploetz 616 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2000
Brett v. Watts 601 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Followed Brett v. Watts 601 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Baker v. Ploetz 597 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Baker v. Ploetz 597 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Nugent v. Kerr 543 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Nugent v. Kerr 543 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
-17 (Minn.1986); , 20 n. 1 (Minn.1982) (defendant’s financial condition must be considered in order to ensure that award is not excessive).
Fiedler v. Adams 466 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Fiedler v. Adams 466 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
L & H AIRCO, INC. v. Rapistan Corp. 446 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1989
L & H AIRCO, INC. v. Rapistan Corp. 446 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1989
Padco, Inc. v. Kinney & Lange 444 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Padco, Inc. v. Kinney & Lange 444 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Perl 415 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 1987
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Perl 415 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 1987
Matter of Discipline of Perl 407 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1987
Matter of Discipline of Perl 407 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1987
In mitigation, the referee noted that the severe fee forfeitures already sustained were both “reparational and admonitory” ().