Legal Opinion
S.B. Foot Tanning Co. v. Piotrowski
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided October 1, 1996No. C4-96-758PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
RANDALL, Judge.
The trial court denied appellants’ motion for a new trial finding that respondents had no duty to cooperate with appellants in preparing or presenting their claim against a third-party tortfeasor and that respondents had not waived their right to subrogation. The trial court also determined appellants’ requested attorney fees to be unreasonable. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to consider more appropriate attorney fees for appellant.
FACTS
In March 1989, while employed by respondent S.B. Foot Tanning Company (S.B. Foot Company), appellant Leo Piotrowski was…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Cooper v. FrenchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- Fabio v. BellomoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
- Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical CenterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- Halla Nursery, Inc. v. Baumann-Furrie & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Travelers Insurance v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1997
- Conwed Corp. v. Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
- 650 North Main Association v. Frauenshuh, Inc. (Territorial Springs Riverview, LLC, Frauenshuh Sweeney, LLC), Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, Doe Affiliates 1-20, and Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, and Third Party v. Berwald Roofing Company, Inc., Third PartyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2016
- In Re Approval of Settlement & Distribution of Wrongful Death Proceeds for the Next of Kin of MarkusonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
- Conwed Corp. v. Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2001