Legal Opinion
Application of Hofstad
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided November 12, 1985No. C1-85-835, C3-85-836PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
POPOVICH, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal of a judgment on the pleadings in a declaratory judgment action. Appellants Hargests and Korpelas claim the trial court erred in (1) not resolving a boundary dispute but applying res judicata and collateral estoppel, (2) not allowing appellants to amend their answers, (3) awarding respondent $500 in attorney’s fees, and (4) not interpreting an option agreement but applying res judicata and collateral es-toppel. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.
FACTS
In 1955 the Albenbergs owned all the involved property, which adjoins Chub Lake in…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Eisert v. Greenberg Roofing & Sheet Metal Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Warrick v. GironSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- Morton v. Board of Com'rs of Ramsey CountySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
- National Recruiters, Inc. v. Toro Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
- In Re Complaint Concerning Judge McDonoughSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Block v. Target Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1990
- Barth v. StenwickCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2009
- Valento v. UlrichCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- Hofstad v. HargestCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- American Accounts & Advisers, Inc. v. HendricksonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1990
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.