Bobey v. City of Minneapolis

472 N.W.2d 337, 1991 Minn. LEXIS 179, 1991 WL 142178
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided August 2, 1991·No. C1-90-2194·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

GARDEBRING, Justice.

We granted the petition for further review of plaintiff Alice Bobey, her attorney individually and the law firm for the limited purpose of examining that portion of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals affirming sanctions imposed on counsel pursuant to Minn.R.Civ.P. 11 and Minn. Stat. § 549.21 (1988). We reverse and remand.-

In Uselman v. Uselman, 464 N.W.2d 130 (Minn.1990), we announced the procedural framework in which the question of the propriety of the imposition of sanctions should, in the first instance, be addressed by the trial court and then, if an appeal is taken, be examined by a reviewing court. On the record before us, we are unable to determine whether the trial court conducted the inquiry contemplated by Uselman. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals affirming the imposition of sanctions and remand the matter to the trial court for its reconsideration in light of the Uselman decision.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bobey v. City of Minneapolis, 472 N.W.2d 337, 1991 Minn. LEXIS 179, 1991 WL 142178 (Mich. 1991).

472 N.W.2d 337 (Bobey v. City of Minneapolis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related