Baker v. Ploetz
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
KALITOWSKI, Judge
Appellants John E. Baker and Barbara K. Baker contend the district court erred by denying treble damages in their fraud action against respondent Morris, Fuller & Seaver, P.A. (MFS). Respondents John W. Ploetz and MFS argue the court erred by denying their motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) because the elements of causation and damages were not met. MFS argues the court erred by finding it vicariously liable for respondent Ploetz’s intentional wrongdo ings. Ploetz argues the court erred by allowing punitive damages and by not granting JNOV because…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Frost-Benco Electric Ass'n v. Minnesota Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- Hubred v. Control Data Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- Conover v. Northern States Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- Marston v. Minneapolis Clinic of Psychiatry & Neurology, Ltd.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- City of Minneapolis v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Baker v. PloetzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
- In Re NWFX, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Arkansas · 2001
- Noske v. FriedbergCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006
- Richter v. Van AmbergDistrict Court, D. New Mexico · 2000
- Baker v. PloetzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000