Legal Opinion
Paidar v. Hughes
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided August 3, 2000No. C6-98-2192PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LANCASTER, Justice.
This slander of title action comes to us on appeal from summary judgment in favor of respondent, Fidelity National Title Insurance Company -of New York (Fidelity). The district court implicitly held that attorney fees cannot constitute special damages1 necessary to plead a slander of title action. The Minnesota Court of Ap*278peals affirmed. See Paidar v. Hughes, No. C6-98-2192, 1999 WL 300910 (Minn. App. May 11, 1999). We hold, consistent with the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 633 (1977),2 and the rule adopted in a majority of jurisdictions, that reasonable attorney…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Cooper v. FrenchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- Frost-Benco Electric Ass'n v. Minnesota Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- Nord v. HerreidSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- Hill v. Okay Const. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Phelps v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- In Re Silicone Implant Insurance Coverage LitigationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
- Sumner Hill Homeowners' Ass'n v. Rio Mesa Holdings, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Burns v. Bank of AmericaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2008
- Edgarline Dunbar v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2013
- Lau v. PughMissouri Court of Appeals · 2009
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.