In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Robinson, 724 N.W.2d 508 (Minn. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Robinson, 724 N.W.2d 508 (Minn. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Respondent, vs. True Gravity Ventures, LLC, et al., Respondents, Astra Genstar ... (minn, 2025-07-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Respondent, vs. True Gravity Ventures, LLC, et al., Respondents, Astra Genstar ...
Minn. · 2025 · confidence medium
Although “[l]imitations on time to appeal are designed to expedite the final resolution of litigation,” we must also give “due 8 consideration to fairness and certainty of procedure.” Commandeur LLC v. Howard Hartry, Inc., 724 N.W.2d 508, 511 (Minn. 2006) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Welfare of the Child of R.K. (2×)
Minn. · 2017 · confidence medium
See In re Welfare of S.M.E., 725 N.W.2d at 742-43 (interpreting the procedural rules in a juvenile-delinquency case “to preserve the right to appeal, simplify practice, and lessen confusion,” and noting that re-opening the record in the district court during the appeal period placed the juvenile “in the very predicament” the appellate rules are intended to eliminate); Commandeur LLC v. Howard Hartry, Inc., 724 N.W.2d 508, 511-12 (Minn. 2006) (construing “legal holiday” to include Columbus Day even though, the judicial branch does not recognize that holiday, based in part on a ‘�…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Contractors Edge, Inc. v. City of Mankato (2×)
Minn. · 2015 · confidence medium
Commandeur LLC v. Howard Hartry, Inc., 724 N.W.2d 508, 510 (Minn. 2006).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Dahlin
Minn. · 2008 · confidence medium
Commandeur LLC v. Howard Hartry, Inc., 724 N.W.2d 508, 510 (Minn.2006).
cited Cited "see" State v. Stone
Minn. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commandeur LLC v. Howard Hartry, Inc., 724 N.W.2d 508, 510 (Minn.2006).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Green (2×)
Minn. · 2008 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Compare State v. Wembley, 728 N.W.2d 243, 245-46 (Minn.2007) (explaining that the interests of justice did not require consideration of defendant’s argument regarding tape recording because defendant had “affirmatively requested” that the jury consider that recording for a “tactical reason”), and White v. State, 711 N.W.2d 106, 110-11 (Minn.2006) (concluding that the interests of justice did not justify review when individual failed to challenge composition of jury at proper time), with Commandeur LLC v. Howard Hartry, Inc., 724 N.W.2d 508, 512 (Minn.2006) (affording party “benefit…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Mark Edward ROBINSON, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 298359
A06-2029.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Dec 4, 2006.
724 N.W.2d 508
2006 Minn. LEXIS 850
2006 WL 3518128
Helen.
Published

ORDER

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Mark Edward Robinson has been publicly disciplined by the Wisconsin Supreme Court for multiple acts of misconduct in the handling of various real estate transactions, and the Director requests that this court impose identical discipline under Rule 12(d), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR).

The parties have entered into a stipulation in which respondent admits the misconduct found by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which conduct also violated Rules 1.7(a), 1.7(b), 4.2, 5.3(c)(1), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c), Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. In addition, respondent admits that he failed to inform the Director of the Wisconsin disciplinary proceeding or the suspension of his Wisconsin license, as required by Rule 12(d), RLPR. The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is a six-month suspension. The parties further recommend that the reinstatement hearing provided for in Rule 18, RLPR, not be waived, and that reinstatement be further conditioned on successful completion of the professional responsibility examination under Rule 18(e), RLPR, and satisfaction of the continuing legal education requirements of Rule 18(e), RLPR.

The court has independently reviewed the file and approves the jointly recommended disposition.

Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent Mark Edward Robinson is suspended from the practice of law for a period of not less than six months, effective as of the date of filing of this order, subject to the conditions set forth above. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of suspension to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals), and shall pay $900 in costs and disbursements under Rule 24, RLPR.

BY THE COURT:

/&/ Helen M. Meyer Associate Justice