612-877-5000 | Contact us

Extranet Login

About Moss & Barnett

HISTORY OF MOSS & BARNETT

Moss & Barnett traces its history to 1896, when Jesse Van Valkenburg opened his law office in downtown Minneapolis. The firm has been an integral part of the growth of Minneapolis, Minnesota, which is the business, financial, technological and cultural hub of the entire Upper Midwest.

In the early 1980s, the firm assumed its present name with the merger of the law firms of Moss, Flaherty, Clarkson & Fletcher and Barnett, Ratelle, Hennessy, Vander Vort, Stasel & Herzog. They were joined a short while later by the law firm of Wiese & Cox. Each of these three firms focused on serving the legal needs of the business community – a legacy that remains the firm’s core practice.

Since then, Moss & Barnett has added many established and successful attorneys and has grown steadily to meet the ever increasing size and sophistication of its clients, and is now a 70-lawyer law firm. It ranks within the top ten business law firms in the region, serving clients throughout the surrounding states from our offices in the heart of the Minneapolis financial and business district.


Related

News Headlines


Case Summaries

Family Law

[02/02] Southerland v. City of New York
In a suit under 42 USC Section 1983 asserting that a New York City children's services caseworker entered the plaintiffs' home unlawfully and effected an unconstitutional removal of children into state custody, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant caseworker is: 1) affirmed with respect to the dismissal of the father's substantive due process claim; but 2) vacated with respect to the father's and his children's Fourth Amendment unlawful-search and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims and the children's unlawful-seizure claim, where the district court wrongfully concluded that the caseworker was entitled to qualified immunity with respect to all of the claims against him.

[02/02] Marriage of Walker
In a family court proceeding in which the recipient of a California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) disability allowance challenged earlier family court orders awarding a community property interest in the allowance to his former spouse, the family court's denial of the appellant's motion to set aside the earlier orders is reversed, where the family court erred as a matter of law in concluding that the recipient had made "no mistake" in agreeing that his spouse had a community property interest in his disability allowance and thus should not have denied his motion on this basis.

[02/02] Marriage of Wahl
On appeal from an order requiring an ex-wife to pay to her former husband $552,153.28 in attorney's fees and costs as a sanction because of her conduct with respect to two post-dissolution orders, the order is affirmed, where the record disclosed no abuse of discretion in the trial court's award, and additional sanctions are imposed against the appellant and her appellate attorneys on a finding that the appeal is frivolous.

[01/31] T.W. v. Superior Court (San Diego County Health and Human Servs. Agency)
In proceedings in mandate to review an order designating the specific placement of a dependent child after termination of parental rights, the petition is granted with directions, where the district court abused its discretion by denying a petition by the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency to remove the child from the home of his prospective adoptive parent, because the district court did not give appropriate weight to the legislature's goal of securing an adoptive home for a dependent child that is free from the influences of criminal activity and substance abuse.

More...


4800 WELLS FARGO CENTER | 90 South Seventh Street | Minneapolis, MN 55402-4129
P: 612-877-5000 F: 612-877-5999 Contact us