1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.W.2d
  4. 653 N.W.2d
  5. 653 N.W.2d 204 (2002)
 

MOTORSPORTS RACING PLUS v. ARCTIC CAT SALES

No. C4-02-530.

653 N.W.2d 204 (2002)

MOTORSPORTS RACING PLUS, INC., Appellant, v. ARCTIC CAT SALES, INC., Respondent, Polaris Sales, Inc., Respondent, Bombardier Motor Corporation of America, a Delaware corporation, Respondent, Yamaha Motor Corporation, a California corporation, Respondent, International Snowmobile Racing, a Wisconsin corporation, Respondent, International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association, a Michigan corporation, Respondent, XYZ Corporation, ABC Partnership, John Doe and Mary Roe, whose names are unknown to Plaintiff.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

November 19, 2002.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Wood R. Foster, Jr., Jordan M. Lewis, Steven J. Weintraut, Vickie L. Loher, Siegel, Brill, Greupner, Duffy & Foster, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.

Annamarie A. Daley, Gary L. Wilson, Christopher A. Seidl, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, for respondent Arctic Cat Sales, Inc.

George W. Soule, Bowman & Brooke, L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, for respondent Polaris Sales, Inc.

Robert A. Schwartzbauer, Paul J. Robbennolt, Dorsey & Whitney, L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, for respondent Bombardier Motor Corporation of America.

James L. Volling, Jason K. Walbourn, Jessica R.F. Grassley, Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, for respondent Yamaha Motor Corporation.

Stephen C. Rathke, Kay N. Hunt, Stacy A. DeKalb, Lommen, Nelson, Cole & Stageberg, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for respondent International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association.

Considered and decided by KALITOWSKI, Presiding Judge, KLAPHAKE, Judge, and HARTEN, Judge.

OPINION

HARTEN, Judge.

Appellant brought both antitrust and business tort claims against respondents, who challenged appellant's standing to assert the claims. The district court found that appellant had standing and granted respondents summary judgment on the claims. Appellant challenges the summary judgment; respondents notice review of the determination that appellant had standing. Because we conclude that appellant did not have standing to bring its...

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