Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cook v. Connolly

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided November 8, 1984No. C6-83-2043Published

1DissentFoley, Judge

I respectfully dissent. Plaintiff has an independent cause of action which she ought to be permitted to pursue on the merits.

1. The plaintiff should not be collaterally estopped from bringing her claim.

The majority opinion holds that the doctrine of collateral estoppel estops plaintiff from asserting her claim of negligence against the respondent attorney. The majority opinion totally ignores the fact that the settlement which was approved when plaintiff was four years old related to a claim of negligence asserted against entirely different tortfeasors — on entirely different issues.

The…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Lucas v. HammCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Christy v. SalitermanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
  3. Nieting v. BlondellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  4. Ellis v. Minneapolis Commission on Civil RightsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
  5. Kaiser v. Northern States Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1984

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API