Placeholder canvas
Date: January 9, 2015

Foley & Mansfield Client Prevails in Minnesota Court of Appeals Eviction Case

by foleyandmansfield
Date: January 9, 2015
by foleyandmansfield

Foley & Mansfield Client Prevails in Minnesota Court of Appeals Eviction Case

Placeholder canvas

Foley & Mansfield Client Prevails in Minnesota Court of Appeals Eviction Case

On July 22, 2008, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a Scott County jury verdict against a Foley & Mansfield client (BTI) in an eviction proceeding, which had been brought over BTI’s objection as a separate suit from a pending shareholder / corporate ownership lawsuit. BTI asserted that the eviction action should have been stayed as the issues of ownership and the right to use the properties were already being litigated between the parties in another county. The trial court allowed the eviction action to proceed, but refused to instruct the jury on BTI’s affirmative defenses. In a published and unanimous decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the eviction jury verdict. The appellate court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying BTI’s motion to stay that action when (1) an existing, separate district court action would be dispositive of the issues of possession and title to the subject commercial real property and (2) the district court in the eviction action has concluded that some of the claims asserted in the first-filed action were essential to BTI’s defense of the eviction action. Mike Haag, Tom Pahl, and Hillary Parsons, attorneys in Foley & Mansfield’s Minneapolis office, handled the BTI appeal. “Although we would have preferred this same outcome without the unnecessary fees and costs associated with the first trial and this appeal, the Court of Appeals’ holding, and its rationale vindicates our consistent position, namely, BTI wants to have one jury hear and decide all of the disputed issues between the parties,” said Pahl, BTI’s lead trial attorney.

Amended FRE 702 Creates Path for Expert Challenges in Talc Litigation

A recent update to the federal rules governing the use of expert testimony/evidence in federal court will widely impact how scientific and medical evidence is presented to juries in federal matters, including talcum powder litigation. With the change to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE 702”), defendants […]

LEARN MORE

Summarizing “ILR Briefly: The Asbestos Over-Naming and Trust Transparency Problem: A Philadelphia Case Study”

Introduction Asbestos litigation has become a cornerstone of the American legal landscape, spanning over four decades, and involving more than a million individual personal injury claims across state and federal courts. In 2012, a commentary titled “The Philadelphia Story: Asbestos Litigation, Bankruptcy Trusts, and Changes in Exposure Allegations from 1991-2010” […]

LEARN MORE

Minnesota Legislature Seeks to Change Newly Effective Earned Safe and Sick Time Law

By now, employers should be familiar with and implementing (if applicable) Minnesota’s Earned Safe and Sick Time law (“ESST”) that took effect on January 1, 2024. ESST is paid leave that an employee may use when they or a family member are sick, need to see a doctor or medical […]

LEARN MORE