Legal Opinion

State Fund Mutual Insurance Co. v. Mead

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided February 1, 2005No. A04-561PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HALBROOKS, Judge.

Appellant insurance company challenges the district court’s order denying its motion to intervene, arguing (1) that it is entitled to party status because respon dents do not adequately represent and protect its workers’ compensation subrogation interest in the lawsuit and (2) that it should be allowed to intervene so it can conduct discovery concerning the tortfea-sor’s assets. Appellant also moves to dismiss issues allegedly raised by respondent on appeal for the first time. Respondents separately arg-ue that the district court erred in denying their request for…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Naig v. Bloomington SanitationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  2. City of Minnetonka v. CarlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  3. Norman v. RefslandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
  4. Easterlin v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
  5. Conwed Corp. v. Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2001

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Westfield Insurane Co. v. Wensmann, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2013
  2. Richard J. Hartfiel v. Raymond Wilburn Allison, T. J. Potter Trucking, Inc., Westfield Insurance Company, intervenorCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2016
  3. Robert Kagel v. Christian Brackey, Kagel Acquisition Company, LLCCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2016

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

Powered by the Exa API