No. C7-88-1891.Supreme Court of Minnesota.
August 11, 1989.
Syllabus by the Court
Summary judgment is appropriate where there exist no genuine issues of material fact regarding causation with regard to defendant’s alleged negligence.
Court of Appeals.
Dudley Younkin, Green, Merrigan, Johnson Quayle, Minneapolis, for appellants.
Arnold Larson, Duluth, pro se.
Robert F. Berger, The Trenti Law Firm, Virginia, for Donovan, McCarthy, Crassweller, Larson Magie, P.A.
John D. Kelly, Hanft, Fride, O’Brien, Harries, Swelbar
Burns, P.A., Duluth, for James Balmer, et al.
Considered and decided by the court en banc.
POPOVICH, Chief Justice.
We granted the petition of Donovan, McCarthy, Crassweller, Larson Magie, P.A. to review the decision of the court of appeals reversing the summary judgment in petitioner’s favor in the St. Louis County District Court in this legal malpractice action. Friesens, Inc. v. Arnold Larson,
Page 831
438 N.W.2d 444 (Minn.App. 1989). We reverse and reinstate the summary judgment.
The facts and procedural history are detailed in the decision of the court of appeals. It is our view that the trial court properly entered summary judgment against the plaintiff on its claim that the defendant law firm was negligent in failing to provide adequate representation. The record persuades us that there exist no genuine issues of material fact that the alleged negligence in the performance of legal representation prior to January 1, 1983, the time when the firm’s supervision and control over the file ceased, was causally related to any damages plaintiff might have incurred. Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller Keefe, 291 N.W.2d 686, 692 (Minn. 1980).
Reversed and summary judgment reinstated.
[EDITORS’ NOTE: PAGE 832 CONTAINS DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS]Page 833