1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 784 F.Supp.
  5. 784 F.Supp. 1405 (1992)
 

BIETER CO. v. BEATTA BLOMQUIST

No. 3-89 CIV 759.

784 F.Supp. 1405 (1992)

BIETER COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. BEATTA BLOMQUIST; City of Eagan; Federal Land Company; Eagan Tower Office Building Partnership; Eagan Heights Commercial Park; Advance Developers, Inc.; Cliff Road Properties; Hoffman Development Group, Inc.; HDG Associates Limited Partnership; Eagan Associates Limited Partnership; CRP of Eagan, Inc.; Robert L. Hoffman; Patrick C. Hoffman; and Jack F. Daly, Jr., Defendants. CLIFF ROAD PROPERTIES; Hoffman Development Group, Inc.; Advance Developers, Inc.; HDG Associates Limited Partnership; Eagan Associates Limited Partnership; CRP of Eagan, Inc.; Robert L. Hoffman; Patrick C. Hoffman; and Jack F. Daly, Jr., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. DORSEY & WHITNEY, a Minnesota partnership; and Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, Third-Party Defendants.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota, Third Division.

February 18, 1992.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Lindquist & Vennum by R. Walter Bachman, Jr., and James McCarthy, Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiff.

Hoff & Allen by George C. Hoff, and Thomas G. Barry, Jr., Minneapolis, Minn., for defendant Beatta Blomquist.

Best & Flanagan by Robert R. Barth and Cindy J. Larson, Minneapolis, Minn., for defendant Federal Land Co.

Fruth & Anthony by Joseph W. Anthony and Norman J. Baer, Minneapolis, Minn., for defendants Advance Developers, Inc., Cliff Road Properties and Hoffman Development Group, Inc.

Fabyanske, Svoboda, Westra & Davis by Gerald L. Svoboda, St. Paul, Minn., for third-party defendant Dorsey & Whitney.

Fredrikson & Byron by Thomas S. Fraser, and Todd A. Wind, Minneapolis, Minn., for third-party defendant Ryan Const. Co. of Minnesota, Inc.

ORDER

ALSOP, Chief Judge.

The above entitled matter came on for hearing before this court on December 20, 1991 upon the motions of all defendants for summary judgment on plaintiff's complaint, and upon the motions of all third-party defendants for summary judgment on the third-party complaint. For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motions for summary judgment will be granted, and plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases