Legal Opinion
Anderson v. Pearson
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided February 3, 1987No. C8-86-1832PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CRIPPEN, Judge.
Appellant challenges the trial court order requiring him to file a $1,780,000 bond as a condition to avoid dismissal of his lawsuit with prejudice. We reverse and remand.
FACTS
In 1985, respondent Pearson and appellant Anderson were general partners in P & A Partners, which they formed to promote the construction of the “Superior Shores” project, a resort hotel complex. The partners agreed Anderson would obtain the necessary private financing and Pearson would secure public assistance for the project.
Pearson approached the Lake County Housing and Redevelopment Authority…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Custom Farm Services, Inc. v. CollinsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
- Village of Elbow Lake v. OTTER TAIL POWER COMPANYSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
- Gram v. Village of ShoreviewSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Sisto v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of DuluthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Ashenbrenner v. City of East Grand ForksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
3Cited by3 opinions
- Pike v. GunyouCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
- Anderly v. City of MinneapolisCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
- Pike v. GunyouCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992