holding that a bank’s claim for the recovery of reasonable attorney fees was a legal, rather than equitable claim, because it was an action seeking a monetary payment for contractual indemnity, and thus the appellants were entitled to a jury trial on attorneys’ fees under Article I, Section 4 of the Minnesota Constitution
How later courts described this case
- holding that a bank’s claim for the recovery of reasonable attorney fees was a legal, rather than equitable claim, because it was an action seeking a monetary payment for contractual indemnity, and thus the appellants were entitled to a jury trial on attorneys’ fees under Article I, Section 4 of the Minnesota Constitution
- holding that the Minnesota Constitution provides the right to a jury trial for a claim to recover attorney fees based on a contract
- determining whether article I, section 4 of the Minnesota Constitution provides litigants in civil cases the right to request a jury trial by focusing on "whether Minnesota's territorial courts guaranteed the right to a jury trial in the type of action'pled in a complaint” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)
- adopting an interpretation of the jury trial right under the Minnesota Constitution that was different from most federal courts’ interpretation of the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GILDEA, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Justice Dietzen.