Rose v. Guerdon Industries, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
POPOVICH, Chief Judge.
Appellant appeals from a summary judgment dismissing his complaint with prejudice. Appellant claims (1) the trial court failed to properly apply the law in determining a valid contract did not exist between the parties, and (2) the trial court failed to recognize the parties’ dispute involving the meaning of “closing costs” was a genuine issue of material fact. Respondents request attorney’s fees and double costs pursuant to Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 138, claiming this appeal was brought merely for delay. We affirm and deny respondents’ request.
FACTS
In late 1983 or early…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Betlach v. Wayzata CondominiumSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
- Morton v. Board of Com'rs of Ramsey CountySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
- Lake Company v. MolanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
- Minar v. SkoogSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
- Bey v. KeepingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934
3Cited by7 opinions
- Gresser v. HotzlerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
- Abrahamson v. AbrahamsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
- Guerdon Industries, Inc. v. RoseCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- Jacobs v. Cable Constructors, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005
- McLaughlin v. HeikkilaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.