Legal Opinion · Dissent

United Prairie Bank-Mountain Lake v. Haugen Nutrition & Equipment, LLC

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided March 14, 2012No. A09-0607Published

1DissentDietzen, Justice

I respectfully dissent. I disagree with the court’s conclusion that Haugen Nutrition & Equipment, LLC and Leland and llene Haugen (collectively, HNE) are constitutionally entitled to a jury trial on the attorney fees claim of United Prairie Bank. The majority’s decision represents a dramatic sea change for Minnesota courts and casts Minnesota as an outlier among jurisdictions that have considered this issue. Relying on our prior treatment of attorney fees, I conclude that the bank’s claim for attorney fees is most closely analogous to a claim for costs or disburse*64ments, which does not…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Simler v. ConnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Ideal Electronic Security Co. v. International Fidelity InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1997
  3. McGuire v. Russell Miller, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
  4. Hill v. Okay Const. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  5. Eastern Trading Company v. Refco, Inc., and Refco Capital CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2000

29 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