
Minnesota Court Of Appeals Issues Three Decisions in Favor of Larson • King Clients
In May of 2024, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued decisions in favor of three separate Larson • King clients across various practice areas.
In May of 2024, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued decisions in favor of three separate Larson • King clients across various practice areas.
Larson • King recently helped secure a trial win for a large manufacturing client in a mass tort case. Following a multi-week trial in Kentucky where the plaintiff asked for compensatory and punitive damages totaling $75 million, the jury returned a defense verdict finding no defect in the product.
An obstacle course race organizer won summary judgment in a “greater than ordinary” negligence claim brought by a race participant after the participant suffered a significant injury during an obstacle course race. The case had complex discovery and expert issues, and required analysis of the interplay between waiver provisions, Minnesota pleading requirements, and statutory issues.
Patrick H. O’Neill, III has joined Larson • King as an associate. Patrick will handle business litigation, appeals, products liability, and professional liability matters.
Professional liability litigator Patrick H. O’Neill, Jr. is quoted in Minnesota Lawyer’s coverage of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s Frederick v. Wallerich et al.
Larson • King partner Peter J. Gleekel is mentioned in NPR and Billboard’s coverage of the disputes surrounding the estate of musician Prince Rogers Nelson.
On February 7, 2018, in Frederick v. Wallerich, et al., the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a decision in favor of Larson • King’s client on a legal malpractice claim.
The Superior Court for the Third Judicial District of Alaska issued an order granting a summary judgment motion brought by Larson • King attorneys.
On December 10, 2015, United States District Court Judge Richard Kyle granted summary judgment in favor of Walmart in an age discrimination claim under the
Larson · King attorneys dealt a blow to plaintiffs’ attempts to urge a narrow construction of the prior express consent provision of the Telephone Consumer