Legal Opinion

Bowman v. Bowman

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 8, 1992No. C9-92-388PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

AMUNDSON, Judge.

Appellant, a nonparty witness, was subpoenaed to testify and produce business records at a deposition. Appellant challenges the trial court orders denying him reimbursement for the reasonable expense of testifying and producing the documents, finding him in contempt of court and ordering him to pay respondent’s attorney fees. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

FACTS

Appellant Frank Bowman and his son Carl Bowman were partners in the Bowman Construction Company. Appellant was subpoenaed to testify and produce business records of the company at a deposition in…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Frost-Benco Electric Ass'n v. Minnesota Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
  2. Barr/Nelson, Inc. v. Tonto's, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
  3. Amerman v. LAKELAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
  4. Campbell v. Motion Picture Machine OperatorsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
  5. Chicago Greatwestern Office Condominium Ass'n v. BrooksCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1988

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Karsian v. Inter-Regional Financial Group, Inc.District Court, D. Colorado · 1998
  2. Wick Building Systems, Inc. v. Employers Insurance of WausauCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
  3. Patton v. Newmar Corp.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
  4. In re the Marriage of: Helen Kernik v. James Kernik, Judith MurphyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API