Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., P.L.L.P.

715 N.W.2d 484 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., P.L.L.P.

8 Citing cases

  1. Brown-Wilbert v. Copeland

    732 N.W.2d 209 (Minn. 2007)   Cited 150 times
    Holding that answers to interrogatories that were timely served but that failed to disclose the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert was expected to testify were insufficient to invoke the safe harbor

    The court of appeals reversed, holding that the judgment in BW-I was not final because the appellate process had not been exhausted. Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl Co., 715 N.W.2d 484, 488 (Minn.App. 2006), rev. granted (Minn. Aug. 23, 2006).

  2. Thornes v. City of Waldorf

    Civil No. 13- 546 (JRT/LIB) (D. Minn. Sep. 29, 2014)

    The Court will therefore dismiss all claims with prejudice. See Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., P.L.L.P., 715 N.W.2d 484, 487 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006) ("Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment on the merits is an absolute bar to a second suit for the same cause of action and is conclusive, not only as to every matter actually litigated, but also as to every matter that might have been litigated."), aff'd on other grounds, 732 N.W.2d 209 (Minn. 2007).

  3. Hojberg v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc'y

    CIV. 10-4164-KES (D.S.D. Apr. 13, 2012)

    The third prong requires the court to decide if there was a final judgment on the merits in the first case. For res judicata, a judgment is final when "the appellate process is exhausted." Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., 715 N.W.2d 484, 488 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006) (citation omitted). The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that "[s]ummary judgment is a determination on the merits."

  4. Blom v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc'y

    CIV. 10-4145-KES (D.S.D. Apr. 13, 2012)

    For res judicata, a judgment is final when "the appellate process is exhausted." Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., 715 N.W.2d 484, 488 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006) (citation omitted). The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that "[s]ummary judgment is a determination on the merits."

  5. Butts v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc'y

    852 F. Supp. 2d 1139 (D.S.D. 2012)   Cited 4 times

    The third prong requires the court to decide if there was a final judgment on the merits in the first case. For res judicata, a judgment is final when “the appellate process is exhausted.” Brown–Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., 715 N.W.2d 484, 488 (Minn.Ct.App.2006) (citation omitted). The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that “[s]ummary judgment is a determination on the merits.”

  6. Latham v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co.

    No. A20-1596 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 26, 2021)

    See Brown-Wilbert III, 732 N.W.2d at 220-22 (analyzing whether there was final judgment on the merits in first action for purpose of applying res judicata). Latham also argues that res judicata cannot be applied here based on this court's decision in Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., P.L.L.P., 715 N.W.2d 484 (Minn. App. 2006) (Brown-Wilbert II), aff'd on other grounds, 732 N.W.2d 209 (Minn. 2007). In that case, we concluded that a prior judgment was not final for the purpose of applying res judicata because the appellate process had not been exhausted.

  7. Carlson v. Bloomington Housing Partners II

    Nos. A10-1926, A10-2021 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 11, 2011)   Cited 1 times

    A judgment is final, for purposes of res judicata, once "the appellate process is exhausted." Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl Co., 715 N.W.2d 484, 488 (Minn. App. 2006). Carlson argues that the district court erred by concluding that there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior action.

  8. BROWN-WILBERT, INC. v. COPELAND BUHL CO

    No. A07-2462 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2008)   Cited 2 times
    Requiring expert testimony to support breach of contract claim against accountant where the claim was based on a breach arising out of the accountant-client relationship

    On appeal, this court reversed the dismissal of BW-II, holding that the judgment in BW-I was not final until the appellate process was exhausted. Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl Co., 715 N.W.2d 484, 488 (Minn.App. 2006). The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review of both BW-I and BW-II, and consolidated the two cases.