In May of 2024, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued decisions in favor of three separate Larson • King clients across various practice areas.
On May 6, 2024, the court of appeals affirmed a summary judgment decision in favor of individuals and their family trust engaged in the operation of farmland, interpreting Minn. Stat. § 550.366, the farm debt statute, finding that the statute’s three-year limitation on the collection of judgments does not apply to judgments arising out of the intentional tort of slander of title. Dyrdal v. Wallenberg et al., A23-1416 (Minn. Ct. App. May 6, 2024). Click here to read the decision. For questions related to the underlying action, please contact John Markert. For questions related to the appellate decision, please contact Patrick O’Neill III.
On May 13, 2024, the court of appeals affirmed another summary judgment decision in favor of a mental health clinic, dismissing vicarious liability and negligent supervision claims. In an action alleging that the clinic was vicariously liable for the actions of a psychiatrist employed as an independent contractor or that the clinic was directly liable for his actions under a theory of negligent retention, the court of appeals found that the plaintiff’s vicarious liability claims against the clinic were extinguished by her release of the psychiatrist alleged to be an agent of the clinic and there was no evidence to support a claim of negligent retention. The court of appeals determined that the release of the psychiatrist, combined with an agreement to defend and indemnify the psychiatrist for any contribution claim by the clinic, barred any vicarious liability claim against the clinic because it would create a “circuity of obligation” where the plaintiff would ultimately be responsible for paying her own damages. The court of appeals also determined that the plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence to support a negligent retention claim, finding that there was no evidence that the clinic had either actual knowledge or constructive notice of any dangerous proclivity related to the psychiatrist and his treatment of plaintiff. Doe v. Meany et al., A23-1071 (Minn. Ct. App. May 13, 2024). Click here to read the decision. For questions related to the defense of the underlying medical malpractice claims, please contact Kevin McCarthy. For questions related to the appellate decision, please contact Patrick O’Neill III.
On May 20, 2024, the court of appeals affirmed the disqualification of counsel in an environmental action under Minn. R. Prof. Cond. 1.9 and 1.10. In an action brought under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA), Minn. Stat. §§ 116B.01-.13 and the public-trust doctrine, a metal recycling plant commenced suit against a competitor, alleging a lack of proper permitting and pollution controls. The metal recycling plant’s prior attorneys appeared on behalf of its competitor and moved to dismiss. The metal recycling plant sought to disqualify the attorneys and the firm as a whole under Minn. R. Prof. Cond. 1.9 and 1.10. The district court determined that a conflict existed and disqualified the firm and the individual attorneys. On appeal, the attorneys argued that the district court was required to address the motion to dismiss before ruling on the disqualification motion, among other things. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s disqualification order, finding that disqualification is a “special proceeding, independent of the merits of the underlying environmental action” and that “the district court properly exercised its inherent power over the attorneys appearing in the case in the manner provided by established Minnesota caselaw.” The district court’s disqualification order was affirmed in all other respects. Northern Metals, LLC v. Crow Wing Recycling, Inc. et al., A23-1534 (Minn. Ct. App. May 20, 2024). Click here to read the decision. For questions related to the underlying action, please contact Pat O’Neill Jr. For questions related to the appellate decision, please contact Patrick O’Neill III or Matt Bolt.