KENNECOTT HOLDINGS CORPORATION, et al., Appellants,
v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent,
Employers Insurance of Wausau, Defendant,
Insurance Company of North America, Respondent,
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, Respondent,
Aetna Casualty & Surety, et al., Respondents,
The Home Insurance Company, Respondent,
Landmark Insurance Company, et al., Respondents,
Unigard Security Insurance Company, Respondent.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
March 25, 1997.
March 25, 1997.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Terrence E. Bishop, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., Bloomington, James B. Lee, Francis M. Wikstron, Hal J. Pos, Parsons, Behle & Latimer, Lynn Cardey-Yates, Kennecott Corporation, Salt Lake City, UT, for Appellants.
John F. Angell, Stich & Angell, Minneapolis, Lee H. Glickenshaus, Michael J. Gill, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C., Boston, MA, for Respondent Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.
Paul G. Neimann, Moss & Barnett, Minneapolis, Michael J. Baughman, Cohn & Russell, Chicago, IL, for Respondent Insurance Company of North America.
Neal M. Glazer, Frances Buckley, D'Amato & Lynch, New York City, Charles E. Spevacek, Meagher & Geer, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, for Respondent Lloyd's of London.
Mark D. Cahill, Choate, Hall & Stewart, Boston, MA, Ted E. Sullivan, Lind, Jensen & Sullivan, Minneapolis, for Respondent Aetna Casualty & Surety, et al.
Diana Y. Morrissey, Faegre & Benson, Minneapolis, for Respondent Home Insurance Company.
Thomas A. Pearson, Arthur, Chapman, Kettering, Smetak & Pikala, P.A., Minneapolis, Amy R. Paulus, Clausen & Miller, Chicago, IL, for Respondent Landmark Insurance Company.
Richard P. Mahoney, Mahoney, Dougherty & Mahoney, Minneapolis, James J. Duane, III, Craig Waksler, Taylor, Duane, Barton & Gilman, Boston, MA, for Respondent Unigard Security Insurance Company.
Considered and decided by HUSPENI, P.J., PARKER and SCHUMACHER, JJ.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
OPINION
PARKER, Judge.
The trial court conditionally dismissed Kennecott's action based on forum non conveniens. Kennecott argues that the trial court's conditions were an abuse of discretion because they deprived Kennecott of any procedural benefit attained by filing suit in Minnesota district court. We affirm as modified.
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.
