Gregerson, Rosow, Johnson & Nilan is pleased to announce that Julie Matucheski has joined the firm as an associate attorney. Julie is a graduate of the University of Minnesota Law School. She joins the firm after serving as a judicial law clerk at the Alaska Supreme Court and the Alaska Superior Court.
James Power was recently published in the Summer edition of Minnesota Defense, the quarterly publication of the Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association. James’ article provides a detailed description of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Buskey v. American Legion Post #270. James also discusses that decision’s departure from prior case law, its introduction of new criteria for evaluating notice under the Minnesota Dram Shop Act, and its impact on future claims.
Super Lawyers has named Joshua A. Dorothy as a “Rising Star” for 2018. Super Lawyers selects attorneys using a multiphase selection process that includes independent research by Super Lawyers staff and peer nominations and evaluations by a candidate’s peers. According to Super Lawyers, candidates are evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement. Super Lawyers states that its objective is to create a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys that can be used as a resource for attorneys and consumers searching for legal counsel. No more than 2.5% of attorneys can be named a “Rising Star.”
Maggie Neuville recently obtained an order clearing title on behalf of a municipal client. The order was entered in a Torrens proceeding subsequent, and declared that certain easements and other restrictions should be removed from the property now owned by our client. The order clears the way for future redevelopment and use of the property.
Joe Nilan and Dan Ellerbrock recently obtained an order granting summary judgment in favor of an insurance client. The case involved two issues of first impression in North Dakota: the scope of an insured vs. insured exclusion and the policy’s requirement that a claim be based on actions taken “solely” in an insured capacity. The Court decided both questions in our favor, and held that our client had no obligation to provide coverage for the underlying litigation against the insured.