Legal Opinion

Miller v. Shugart

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided March 12, 1982No. 81-533PublishedCited by 285 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SIMONETT, Justice.

While Milbank Mutual Insurance Company was litigating whether it had coverage for both the insured car owner and the driver, the insured owner and the driver settled with the injured plaintiff and confessed judgment for a stipulated sum. After the coverage question was decided adversely to Milbank, plaintiff commenced a garnishment action against Milbank to collect on the judgment. Milbank appeals from an order in the garnishment proceeding granting plaintiff summary judgment to collect from Milbank on defendants’ confessed judgment to the extent of the policy limits plus…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Polk County v. DodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. Ralph E. Coblentz, as Administrator, D.B.N. Of the Estate of Edward Thomas Coblentz, Deceased v. American Surety Company of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
  3. Prahm v. Rupp Construction Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  4. Butler Bros. v. American Fidelity Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
  5. Juvland v. PlaisanceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1959

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by285 opinions

  1. Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. ButlerWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  2. United Services Automobile Ass'n v. MorrisArizona Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Glenn v. FlemingSupreme Court of Kansas · 1990
  4. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. HelmeArizona Supreme Court · 1987
  5. Red Giant Oil Co. v. LawlorSupreme Court of Iowa · 1995

280 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