Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Sanctions – Procedural Requirements

cassiejohnson//May 1, 2015//

Sanctions – Procedural Requirements

cassiejohnson//May 1, 2015//

Listen to this article

 

Appellants challenged the District Court’s imposition of monetary , arguing that the sanctions must be reversed because respondent failed to comply with the 21-day safe harbor required by Minn. Stat. § 549.211 and Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.03. The Court of Appeals noted that compliance with the safe-harbor provision is mandatory. It concluded that respondents failed to comply with the safe-harbor provision. Reversed and remanded.

A14-1604 Trotta v. Duluth Realty Co. (St. Louis County)

Click for full text

 

Legal Tech

See All Legal Tech News

Top News

See All Top News

Legal calendar

Click here to see upcoming Minnesota events

Expert Testimony

See All Expert Testimony