Bobey v. City of Minneapolis
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 2015, among the opinions in this site’s citation index. Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Minnesota statutes cited
Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Eunice Smith, Relator v. Department of Employment and Economic Development (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
- Spicer, Watson & Carp v. Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 1993)
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
We granted the petition for further review of plaintiff Alice Bobey, her attorney individually and the law firm for the limited purpose of examining that portion of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals affirming sanctions imposed on counsel pursuant to Minn.R.Civ.P. 11 and Minn. Stat. § 549.21 (1988). We reverse and remand.-
In Uselman v. Uselman, 464 N.W.2d 130 (Minn. 1990), we announced the procedural framework in which the question of the propriety of the imposition of sanctions should, in the first instance, be addressed by the trial court and then, if an appeal is taken, be examined by a reviewing court. On the record before us, we are unable to determine whether the trial court conducted the inquiry contemplated by Uselman. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals affirming the imposition of sanctions and remand the matter to the trial court for its reconsideration in light of the Uselman decision.
Reversed and remanded.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.