DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP v. Grossman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that the interpretation of the attorney-lien statute is a question of law that is reviewed de novo
• stating that, “when a lien claimant petitions the district court under section 481.13, subdivision 1(c), the district court must determine . . . the amount due”
• rejecting joint venture argument for lack of evidence as to two elements
• exercise of substantial influence over decisions does not amount to joint control for purposes of joint venture analysis
• “[P]ayment in the form of a fixed percentage of . . . recovery, whether that recovery was nothing or the millions of dollars anticipated, did not constitute profit sharing.”
• “[W]hen a lien claimant petitions the district court under section 481.13, subdivision 1(c), the district court must determine (1) the lienholder; (2) the subject of the lien as defined by the attorney-lien statute; and (3) the amount due.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).