- Search with
- Parallel SearchEnter a full sentence between 5 and 30 words to find cases with conceptually similar sentences
- or
- Keyword SearchEnter keyword terms, accompanied by optional Boolean connectors
- ANDfraud AND damagesBoth terms in document
- ORcar OR automobileEither term in document
- NOTinfringement NOT patentTerm must not appear in document
- """due diligence"Exact match
- ()appeal AND (verdict OR judgment)Grouping terms
- *withdr*wSingle letter wildcard (withdraw, withdrew)
- !infring!Root expander (infringe, infringed, infringing)
- /ninvestor /5 diligenceTerms within n words of each other
- /sfees /s reasonableTerms within same sentence
- /padmissible /p warrantTerms within the same paragraph
Harmon v. Mattson
No. C8-99-132 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 1999)2 Citing cases
Murrin v. Fischer
Civ. No. 07-1295 (PJS/RLE) (D. Minn. Jan. 18, 2008)As a result, the Section plainly reflects the negative consequence of noncompliance — namely, that the Motion to Amend the pleading, so as to state a punitive damage claim, will not be allowed. Cf.,Harmon v. Mattson, 1999 WL 1057236 at *7 (Minn.App., November 23, 1999) (reversing the Trial Court's decision to grant punitive damages because the plaintiffs "failed to submit supporting affidavits when they moved to add punitive damages to their claim * * *."), rev. denied (Minn., January 18, 2000).
Berczyk v. Emerson Tool Company
Civ. No. 02-1335 (RHK/RLE) (D. Minn. Sep. 16, 2003) Cited 39 timesIn Berczyk v. Emerson Tool Co., 291 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (D. Minn. 2003), the court rejected an argument that the manufacturer exhibited deliberate disregard by failing to issue a recall, simply noting that Minnesota has not recognized any duty to recall or retrofit a product.
As a result, the Section plainly reflects the negative consequence of noncompliance — namely, that the Motion to Amend the pleading, so as to state a punitive damage claim, will not be allowed. Cf., Harmon v. Mattson, 1999 WL 1057236 at *7 (Minn.App., November 23, 1999) (reversing the Trial Court's decision to grant punitive damages because the plaintiffs "failed to submit supporting affidavits when they moved to add punitive damages to their claim * * *."), rev. denied (Minn., January 18, 2000). Here, the Defendants complain that the Plaintiffs have failed to support their Motion with a competent Affidavit, both procedurally, and substantively.