S.B. FOOT TANNING CO. v. PIOTROWSKI

No. C4-96-758.

554 N.W.2d 413 (1996)

S.B. FOOT TANNING COMPANY, et al., Respondents, v. Leo PIOTROWSKI, et al., Appellants.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Review Denied December 17, 1996.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Jo Ann Strauss, James L. Haigh, Cousineau, McGuire, & Anderson, Chartered, Minneapolis, for Respondents.

Victor A. Kreuziger, Edina, for Appellants.

Considered and decided by HUSPENI, P.J., and RANDALL and AMUNDSON, JJ.


OPINION

RANDALL, Judge.

The trial court denied appellants' motion for a new trial finding that respondents had no duty to cooperate with appellants in preparing or presenting their claim against a third-party tortfeasor and that respondents had not waived their right to subrogation. The trial court also determined appellants' requested attorney fees to be unreasonable. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to consider more appropriate attorney fees...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases