Legal Opinion
Noske v. Friedberg
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided April 25, 2006No. A05-1160PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DIETZEN, Judge.
Appellant James Noske challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing his legal-malpractice claim, arguing that genuine issues of material fact remain for trial. By notice of review, respondents Joseph Friedberg and Joseph S. Friedberg, Chartered, argue that the district court erred by not dismissing appellant’s claim for failure to submit a proper affidavit of expert review. Because we conclude that (1) appellant timely filed a proper substitute expert-review affidavit under the safe-harbor provisions of Minn.Stat. § 544.42, subd. 6(a) (2004), (2)…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Thiele v. StichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Florenzano v. OlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical CenterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Lake Superior Center Authority v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006
- Schmitz v. RINKE, NOONANCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010
- Bremer Business Finance Corp. v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP (In Re SRC Holding Corp.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · 2006
- Northstar Industries, Inc. v. Merrill Lynch & Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2008
- Wesely v. FlorCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.