8 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Goldberger v. Kaplan, Strangis & Kaplan, P.A.green2 sentences2008In contrast, the court of appeals in Goldberger v. Kaplan, Strangis & Kaplan, PA. did not articulate a threshold requirement, but concluded that the Lucas factors determine whether a nonclient is a third-party beneficiary. 534 N.W.2d 734, 738 (Minn.App.1995). 5 .The Lucas court applied an additional factor not cited by the Marker opinion, namely, "whether the recognition of liability to beneficiaries of wills negligently drawn by attorneys would impose an undue burden on the profession.” 15 Cal.Rptr. 821 , 364 P.2d at 688 . 6 . 2008In contrast, the court of appeals in Goldberger v. Kaplan, Strangis & Kaplan, PA. did not articulate a threshold requirement, but concluded that the Lucas factors determine whether a nonclient is a third-party beneficiary. 534 N.W.2d 734, 738 (Minn.App.1995). 5 .The Lucas court applied an additional factor not cited by the Marker opinion, namely, "whether the recognition of liability to beneficiaries of wills negligently drawn by attorneys would impose an undue burden on the profession.” 15 Cal.Rptr. 821 , 364 P.2d at 688 . 6 . | 2 | 2 |
Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. O'Connor & Hannangreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Admiral Merchs., 494 N.W.2d at 266 (citing Marker to note that an attorney may be liable to a third-party beneficiary “when the client’s sole purpose is to benefit the third party directly,” but proceeding to reverse summary judgment based on its application of the Lucas factors, including “the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect” the nonclient) (emphasis added). 2007See, e.g., Admiral Merchs., 494 N.W.2d at 266 (citing Marker to note that an attorney may be liable to a third-party beneficiary “when the client’s sole purpose is to benefit the third party directly,” but proceeding to reverse summary judgment based on its application of the Lucas factors, including “the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect” the nonclient) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2 |
McIntosh County Bank v. Dorsey & Whitney, LLPgreen2 sentences2018If the party satisfies that threshold requirement, we look to the so-called " Lucas factors" to ascertain "the extent of the duty" that the attorney owed to the third party. 5 Id. 2018Id. at 549 ("Because the respondents are not direct and intended beneficiaries, we do not reach the Lucas *502 factors."). | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Petersongreen2 sentences2007See Estate of Peterson, 579 N.W.2d 488, 490 (Minn.App.1998) (stating that when there are no relevant facts in dispute, the existence of a contract is “solely a question of law to be determined by the court”), review denied (Minn. Aug. 18, 1998). 2007See Estate of Peterson, 579 N.W.2d 488, 490 (Minn.App.1998) (stating that when there are no relevant facts in dispute, the existence of a contract is “solely a question of law to be determined by the court”), review denied (Minn. Aug. 18, 1998). | 1 | 1 |
Francis v. Pipergreen2 sentences2007Francis v. Piper, 597 N.W.2d 922, 924 (Minn.App.1999). 2007Francis v. Piper, 597 N.W.2d 922, 924 (Minn.App.1999). | 1 | 1 |
Agins v. City of Tiburonred2 sentences1996See Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 , 263 n. 9, 100 S.Ct. 2138 , 2143 n. 9, 65 L.Ed.2d 106 (1980) (confining to cases of "extraordinary delay” the right to compensation for loss of property value during the process of governmental decisionmak-ing). 5 . 1996See Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 , 263 n. 9, 100 S.Ct. 2138 , 2143 n. 9, 65 L.Ed.2d 106 (1980) (confining to cases of "extraordinary delay” the right to compensation for loss of property value during the process of governmental decisionmak-ing). 5 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lucas v. Hamm
green
2 sentences2008In contrast, the court of appeals in Goldberger v. Kaplan, Strangis & Kaplan, PA. did not articulate a threshold requirement, but concluded that the Lucas factors determine whether a nonclient is a third-party beneficiary. 534 N.W.2d 734, 738 (Minn.App.1995). 5 .The Lucas court applied an additional factor not cited by the Marker opinion, namely, "whether the recognition of liability to beneficiaries of wills negligently drawn by attorneys would impose an undue burden on the profession.” 15 Cal.Rptr. 821 , 364 P.2d at 688 . 6 . 2008In contrast, the court of appeals in Goldberger v. Kaplan, Strangis & Kaplan, PA. did not articulate a threshold requirement, but concluded that the Lucas factors determine whether a nonclient is a third-party beneficiary. 534 N.W.2d 734, 738 (Minn.App.1995). 5 .The Lucas court applied an additional factor not cited by the Marker opinion, namely, "whether the recognition of liability to beneficiaries of wills negligently drawn by attorneys would impose an undue burden on the profession.” 15 Cal.Rptr. 821 , 364 P.2d at 688 . 6 . | 3 | 2007–2018 |
Marker v. Greenberg
green
2 sentences2018We adopted the Lucas factors in Marker v. Greenberg , 313 N.W.2d at 4 , 5 . 2018We adopted the Lucas factors in Marker v. Greenberg , 313 N.W.2d at 4 , 5 . | 3 | 1995–2018 |
Woodbury Place Partners v. City of Woodbury
green
2 sentences1996In Woodbury Place Partners v. City of Woodbury, property owners sued the city, alleging an unconstitutional taking arising from an interim moratorium denied the owners economically viable use of their property for two years. 492 N.W.2d at 261 . 1996Id. | 2 | 1993–1996 |
McIntosh County Bank v. Dorsey & Whitney, LLP
green
2 sentences2008The court of appeals noted that “Minnesota courts have been inconsistent in defining the proper role of the Lucas factors.” Id. 4 , *546 In Marker , a father retained an attorney for estate planning services, including a transfer of real estate to the father and son as joint tenants. 313 N.W.2d at 4 . 2008The court of appeals noted that “Minnesota courts have been inconsistent in defining the proper role of the Lucas factors.” Id. 4 , *546 In Marker , a father retained an attorney for estate planning services, including a transfer of real estate to the father and son as joint tenants. 313 N.W.2d at 4 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
green
2 sentences1996Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1027-31 , 112 S.Ct. at 2899-2901 . 1996Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1027-31 , 112 S.Ct. at 2899-2901 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
El Vocero De Puerto Rico v. Orsini
green
2 sentences1993In Woodbury Place Partners v. City of Woodbury, 492 N.W.2d 258 (Minn.App.1992), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 15, 1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2929 , 124 L.Ed.2d 679 (1993), property owners brought an action against the city, alleging an unconstitutional taking arising out of a two-year moratorium on development. 1993In Woodbury Place Partners v. City of Woodbury, 492 N.W.2d 258 (Minn.App.1992), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 15, 1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2929 , 124 L.Ed.2d 679 (1993), property owners brought an action against the city, alleging an unconstitutional taking arising out of a two-year moratorium on development. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Woodbury Place Partners v. City of Woodbury
green
2 sentences1993In Woodbury Place Partners v. City of Woodbury, 492 N.W.2d 258 (Minn.App.1992), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 15, 1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2929 , 124 L.Ed.2d 679 (1993), property owners brought an action against the city, alleging an unconstitutional taking arising out of a two-year moratorium on development. 1993In Woodbury Place Partners v. City of Woodbury, 492 N.W.2d 258 (Minn.App.1992), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 15, 1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2929 , 124 L.Ed.2d 679 (1993), property owners brought an action against the city, alleging an unconstitutional taking arising out of a two-year moratorium on development. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.