Legal Opinion

Rice v. Perl

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 11, 1982No. 51792PublishedCited by 73 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OTIS, Justice.

This is an appeal by plaintiff Cecelia Rice, and a request for review by defendants Norman Perl and the law firm of DeParcq, Anderson, Perl, Hunegs and Rud-quist, (hereinafter “the Perl defendants”), resulting from findings that defendants breached their fiduciary duty to Rice, their client, by failing to disclose their ongoing relationship with defendant Willard Browne, a claims adjuster employed by defendant Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

The Perl firm was paying Browne during the time he was representing Aetna in negotiations with the Perl firm to settle Rice’s claim against…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Baker v. HumphreySupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  2. In Re Estate of LeeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1943
  3. Anderson v. AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1972
  4. Scheele v. Union Loan & Finance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1937
  5. Vosbeck v. LerdallSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by73 opinions

  1. Burrow v. ArceTexas Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Maritrans GP Inc. v. Pepper, Hamilton & ScheetzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. Star Centers, Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
  4. Arce v. Burrow, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)1998
  5. Perl v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1984

68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API