KENNECOTT HOLDINGS CORPORATION, et al., Respondents,
v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, pet. Appellant,
Employers Insurance of Wausau, Insurance Company of North America, Respondents,
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, pet. Appellant,
Aetna Casualty & Surety, et al., The Home Insurance Company, Landmark Insurance Company, et al., and Unigard Security Insurance Company, Respondents.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
May 14, 1998.
May 14, 1998.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., Terrence E. Bishop, Bloomington, Parsons, Behle & Latimer, James B. Lee, Francis M. Wikstron, Hal J. Pos, Salt Lake City, UT, for respondents.
Stich & Angell, Leo Brisbois, Minneapolis, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C., Kim V. Marrkand, Michael J. Gill, Boston, MA, for Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
Moss & Barnett, Paul G. Neimann, Minneapolis, for Employers Ins. of Wausau.
Cohn & Russell, Michael J. Baughman, Chicago, IL, for Ins. Co. of North America.
Meagher & Geer, P.L.L.P., William M. Hart, Charles E. Spevacek, Joseph W. E. Schmitt, Minneapolis, D'Amato & Lynch, Neal M. Glazer, Frances Buckley, New York City, for Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London Market Companies.
Lind, Jensen & Sullivan, Ted E. Sullivan, Minneapolis, Choate, Hall & Stewart, Mark D. Cahill, Boston, MA, for Aetna Cas. & Surety, et al.
Faegre & Benson, Diana Y. Morrissey, Minneapolis, for Home Ins. Co.
Arthur, Chapman, Kettering, Smetak & Pikala, P.A., Thomas A. Pearson, Minneapolis, Clausen & Miller, Amy R. Paulus, Chicago, IL, for Landmark Ins. Co.
Mahoney, Dougherty & Mahoney, Richard P. Mahoney, Minneapolis, Craig, Waksler, Taylor, Duane, Barton & Gilman, James J. Duane, III, Boston, MA, for Unigard Security Ins. Co.
Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
OPINION
STRINGER, Justice.
The issue we consider is whether dismissal of a plaintiff's claim, properly pending in a Minnesota court, on the basis of forum non conveniens, must be conditioned to preserve the plaintiff's same procedural rights, including the statute of limitations, in the transfer court as it would have had in Minnesota where the case was filed. The district court held that it did not, but the court of appeals modified the dismissal...
Let's get started
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.
