Westerlund v. Peterson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Two actions in the district court for St. Louis county, one by plaintiff individually and the other as mother and natural guardian of a minor child. Her attorneys of record obtained an order to show cause why the amount and validity of their fees should .not be determined by the court and plaintiff enjoined from the prosecution of any other action against them to determine the amount of their services.
Read the full summary
Two actions in the district court for St. Louis county, one by plaintiff individually and the other as mother and natural guardian of a minor child. Her attorneys of record obtained an order to show cause why the amount and validity of their fees should .not be determined by the court and plaintiff enjoined from the prosecution of any other action against them to determine the amount of their services. Plaintiff made special appearance through other attorneys, and objected to the jurisdiction of the court. The objection was overruled, Cant, J. From the order overruling the objection and…
1Opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
On January 25, 1924, the following opinion was filed:
Stone, J.
Respondents’ petition for rehearing has received attention which we have attempted to make thorough-going. As a result, the conclusion expressed in the former opinion is confirmed rather than weakened, and the petition is denied.
The point is made that the original opinion does not review the Minnesota cases. That is a proper criticism and the omission is one which we are glad to rectify. The cases to which our attention has been invited are: Weicher v. Cargill, 86 Minn. 271, 90 N. W. 402; Landro v. Great…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Yick Wo v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Eriksson v. BoyumSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- Weicher v. CargillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
- Crowley v. Le DucSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Farmer v. Stillwater Water Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.