Amerman v. LAKELAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2016, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- Bolander v. Bolander (Minn. Ct. App. 2005)
- Zurich Reinsurance (UK) Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. (Minn. Ct. App. 2000)
- Hurlburt v. Northern States Power Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 1994)
- Soderberg & Vail, LLC v. Meshbesher & Spence, Ltd. (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
- Cameron Court Homeowners Association v. Ngozichukwa Akubuike (Minn. Ct. App. 2014)
- County of Scott v. Johnston (Minn. Ct. App. 2013)
- County of Dakota v. Cameron (Minn. Ct. App. 2012)
- City of Maple Grove v. Marketline Construction Capital, LLC (Minn. Ct. App. 2011)
- Frontier Insurance Co. v. Frontline Processing Corp. (Minn. Ct. App. 2010)
- Milner v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)
- Northfield Care Center, Inc. v. Anderson (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)
- Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)
- WELLS'DAIRY, INC. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Illinois (District Court, N.D. Iowa 2003)
- Andrew L. Youngquist, Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 2001)
- Franklin v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 1997)
- Van Vickle v. C.W. Scheurer & Sons, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 1996)
- Bowman v. Bowman (Minn. Ct. App. 1992)
- Ryan v. Bigos Properties Ex Rel. Bigos (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
- Katz & Lange, Ltd. v. Beugen (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
- Thomton, Sperry & Jensen, Ltd. v. Anderson (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Defendants Walter and Theodore Anderson appeal from a judgment determining and awarding attorneys’ fees for legal services rendered to them by plaintiffs. The single issue raised is whether the evidence sustains the trial court’s factual determination that $13,600 rather than $37,000, the amount claimed by plaintiffs, represents the reasonable value of the legal services.
Our review of the evidence, including plaintiffs’ answers to interrogatories received as an exhibit during trial, convinces us that there is ample evidentiary support for the court’s determination. Since it is fundamental that the reasonable value of attorneys’ fees is a question of fact, 1 and the findings of the trial court must be upheld by a reviewing court unless clearly erroneous, 2 no purpose would be served in demonstrating the basis for our conclusion. Despite defendants’ election not to challenge the evidentiary sufficiency of the court’s findings by a post-trial motion and their contrary contentions on this appeal, the trial court’s explanatory memorandum accompanying the findings adequately demonstrates the court’s painstaking efforts to weigh all of the evidence submitted and to apply all proper legal standards in order to determine the reasonableness of the fees awarded. 3
Affirmed.
See, Dolf v. Schlactenhaufen, 269 Minn. 488, 131 N. W. 2d 620 (1964); Meagher v. Kavli, 251 Minn. 477, 88 N. W. 2d 871 (1958).
Rule 52.01, Rules of Civil Procedure.
Obraske v. Woody, 294 Minn. 105, 199 N. W. 2d 429 (1972).
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.