Legal Opinion
Finneman v. Lutz-Laidlaw Partnership
District Court, D. South Dakota
Decided March 28, 2023No. 5:21-cv-05025Unknown
1Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA . WESTERN DIVISION . DAVID M. FINNEMAN, husband, And CONNIE S. FINNEMAN, wife, Plaintiffs 5:21-cv-5025 VS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER WALTER ROBERT LAIDLAW, husband, and FRANCES EVON LAIDLAW, wife, Defendants Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees with supporting documentation. (Doc. 46-48). Plaintiffs have not filed a response. The Court denied without prejudice an earlier motion for attorneys’ fees, (Doc. 43), pending a decision from the Eighth Circuit on Plaintiffs’ appeal. The appeal has been denied and…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- City of Sioux Falls v. KelleySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
- Crisman v. Determan Chiropractic, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2004
- In Re South Dakota Microsoft Antitrust LitigationSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2005
- Credit Collection Services, Inc. v. PesickaSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2006
- Duffy v. Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial CircuitSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2004
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.