In re Conservatorship of Nelsen

6 Citing cases

  1. In re Conservatorship of Begin

    Nos. A09-1233, A09-1518 (Minn. Ct. App. May. 25, 2010)

    This court has held that an attorney-client contract for representation may be a contract that requires approval by the conservator. In re Conservatorship of Nelsen, 587 N.W.2d 649, 651 (Minn. App. 1999). This court has stated that "after [a] conservatorship is established that requires [the] conservator to approve or withhold approval of any contract that the conservatee may make or wish to make, except a contract for necessities, a conservatee may not retain an attorney without approval by the conservator or the court."

  2. Francis v. Piper

    597 N.W.2d 922 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that attorney is liable only to clients and nonclient third parties when client's sole purpose in retaining attorney is to benefit directly nonclient third party

    Francis asserts, for the first time on appeal, that in the alternative she can maintain a direct negligence action against Piper because there was no attorney-client relationship between Piper and Heine. She bases her assertion on In re Conservatorship of Nelsen, 587 N.W.2d 649 (Minn.App. 1999), decided after the district court granted summary judgment on her claim. This court will generally not consider issues not presented and considered by the district court.

  3. Matter of S.H

    54 P.3d 780 (Alaska 2002)

    This reasoning, CPS argues, should apply to the instant case. 587 N.W.2d 649 (Minn.App. 1999).Id. at 650.

  4. Aasen v. Macbride

    A17-0592 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 26, 2017)

    To determine the intent of the legislature, we may look to, amongst other factors, the purpose of the statute, prior caselaw, and the consequences of an interpretation. See Minn. Stat. § 645.16(4)-(6) (2016); see also In re Conservatorship of Nelsen, 587 N.W.2d 649, 651 (Minn. App. 1999). First, protecting the debtor's family is one of the primary goals of the statute, and our interpretation advances this purpose by protecting Ms. Aasen and the parties' children.

  5. SPHERION PACIFIC v. COMM. OF EMPL. ECON

    No. A05-1391 (Minn. Ct. App. May. 30, 2006)

    The object of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent. Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2004); see also In re Conservatorship of Nelsen, 587 N.W.2d 649, 651 (Minn.App. 1999) (listing factors that may be considered in determining legislative intent when a statute is ambiguous). Minn. Stat. § 268.051, subd. 4(f), states that the commissioner "shall determine if an employer is a successor within the meaning of this subdivision" and that the "determination shall be final unless a protest is filed by the employer within 30 calendar days after sending the determination."

  6. Sanborn Grayson v. Dietrich

    No. C6-00-1447 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2001)

    While a written contract is certainly helpful, such a contract is not necessary to establish an attorney-client relationship if there is other evidence supporting the relationship's existence. See In re Conservatorship of Nelsen, 587 N.W.2d 649, 651 (Minn.App. 1999) (stating Minnesota law recognizes contract theory (express or implied) and tort theory for establishing attorney-client relationship). We conclude that an attorney-client relationship existed until Dietrich terminated the representation in July 1999.