Legal Opinion
Gibson v. Coldwell Banker Burnet
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided April 8, 2003No. C4-02-1385PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WILLIS, Judge.
Appellant law firm challenges the district court’s imposition of a Minn. R. Civ. P. 11 sanction. By notice of review, respondents contend that the sanction is an insufficient deterrent against further litigation abuses by appellant. Because respondents failed to follow the 21-day safe-harbor provision of Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.03(a)(1), we conclude that the district court abused its discretion and reverse the imposition of the sanction.
FACTS
In the fall of 1997, respondents Richard and Cheryl Gibson owned a house in Minneapolis, and from that time until the spring of 1999,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Thiele v. StichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- George Hadges, William M. Kunstler v. Yonkers Racing Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- Tompkins v. CyrCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2000
- Uselman v. UselmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- Barber v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Damon v. GroteboerDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2013
- Francis v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
- Johnson Ex Rel. Johnson v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2007
- In Re the Claims for No-Fault Benefits Against Progressive Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006
- Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Developers Diversified Realty Corp.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2009
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.