Legal Opinion
Maus v. Toder
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided January 19, 2010No. Case 09-cv-628-PAC/JJKPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PATRICK A. CONMY, Senior District Judge.
Before the Court is the Defendants’ motion for a summary judgment. The Plaintiff resists the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.
I. BACKGROUND
This is an action for an accounting, usury, recision of an agreement to provide legal services, and breach of fiduciary duty. Between 2001 and 2005 the Chestnut & Cambronne law firm, where Defen dant Brian Toder works as an attorney, represented the Plaintiff Steven Maus in a business partnership dissolution matter. See Maus v. Galic, 669 N.W.2d…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Kathy Davison v. City of Minneapolis, Minnesota Rocco Forte, in His Individual and Official CapacitiesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2007
- Diesel MacHinery, Inc. v. B.R. Lee Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2005
- Rathbun v. WT Grant CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
- Kaiser v. Northern States Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Mauro v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2010
- Ness v. Gurstel Chargo, P.A.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2013
- Price v. Midland Funding LLCDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2018
- Price v. Midland Funding LLCDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2018