Hauschildt v. Beckingham
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
RANDALL, Judge.
In this appeal from a dismissal of their complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, appellants argue that the district court improperly: (1) held that collateral estoppel barred their action; (2) held that there could be no fiduciary relationship as a matter of law; and (3) determined that class certification was improper. Because the district court based its dismissal on defensive collateral estoppel, the rule 12 dismissal is reversed and the complaint reinstated.
FACTS
Appellants were members of West’s Publishing Employees Preferred Stock…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
- Care Institute, Inc.-Roseville v. County of RamseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
- Cook v. ConnollySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
- Davies v. West Publishing Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
- Wilson v. Commissioner of RevenueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hauschildt v. BeckinghamSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2004