DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Jorgenson v. Jorgenson, 84 N.W. 221.

26 citing documents.

  • Burke v. Fine 51 N.W.2d 818 Minn. 1952
  • Burke v. Fine 51 N.W.2d 818 Minn. 1952
    See, Jorgenson v. Jorgenson, 81 Minn. 428 , .
  • Shaughnessy v. Eidsmo 23 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1946
  • Shaughnessy v. Eidsmo 23 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1946
    7 See, Slingerland v. Slingerland, 39 Minn. 197 , ; Jorgenson v. Jorgenson, 81 Minn. 428 , ; Veum v. Sheeran, 95 Minn. 315 , ; Trebesch v. Trebeseh, 130 Minn. 368 , ; Chapel v. Chapel, 132 Minn. 86 , ; Happel v. Happel, 184 Minn. 377 , .
  • Schaefer v. Thoeny 273 N.W. 190 Minn. 1937
  • Schaefer v. Thoeny 273 N.W. 190 Minn. 1937
    would be a fraud on the part of the other party to set up its invalidity, equity will make the case an exception to the statute.’ That is, equity will not permit the statute, the purpose of which was to prevent fraud, to be used as a means of committing it.” The following cases are helpful: Svanburg v. Fosseen, 75 Minn. 350 , , 43 L. R. A. 427, 74 A. S. R. 490; Jorgenson v. Jorgenson, 81 Minn. 428 , ; Janochosky v. Kurr, 120 Minn. 471 , ; Trebesch v. Trebesch, 130 Minn. 368 , ; Hatlestad v. Mutu
  • Welsh v. Estate of Welsh 181 N.W. 356 Minn. 1921
  • Welsh v. Estate of Welsh 181 N.W. 356 Minn. 1921
    Jorgenson v. Jorgenson, 81 Minn. 428 , .
  • Holland v. Ousbye 155 N.W. 1071 Minn. 1916
  • Holland v. Ousbye 155 N.W. 1071 Minn. 1916
    Gill v. Newell, 13 Minn.. 430 (462); Brown v. Hoag, 35 Minn. 373 , ; Jorgenson v. Jorgenson, 81 Minn. 428 , ; Veum v. Sheeran, 95 Minn. 315 , .
  • Trebesch v. Trebesch 153 N.W. 754 Minn. 1915
  • Trebesch v. Trebesch 153 N.W. 754 Minn. 1915
    Jorgenson v. Jorgenson, 81 Minn. 428 , ; Snow v. Snow, 98 Minn. 348 , .
  • Hayes v. Hayes 148 N.W. 125 Minn. 1914
  • Hayes v. Hayes 148 N.W. 125 Minn. 1914
    490; Jorgenson v. Jorgenson, 81 Minn. 428 , ; Ferguson v. Trovaten, 94 Minn. 209 , ; Snow v. Snow, 98 Minn. 348 , .
  • Janochosky v. Kurr 139 N.W. 944 Minn. 1913
  • Janochosky v. Kurr 139 N.W. 944 Minn. 1913
    The principle applied in *477 Williams v. Stewart, supra, is further elucidated in the cases of Brown v. Hoag, 35 Minn. 373 , , Slingerland v. Slingerland, 39 Minn. 197 , , Jorgenson v. Jorgenson, 81 Minn. 428 , , Veum v. Sheeran, 95 Minn. 315 , , and Paine v. Wilcox, 16 Wis.
  • Snow v. Snow 108 N.W. 295 Minn. 1906
  • Snow v. Snow 108 N.W. 295 Minn. 1906
    Jorgenson v. Jorgenson, 81 Minn. 428 , , and cases cited.
  • Veum v. Sheeran 104 N.W. 135 Minn. 1905
  • Veum v. Sheeran 104 N.W. 135 Minn. 1905
    §§ 457, 458.” In line with the rule laid down in that case, the court, in Jorgenson v. Jorgenson, 81 Minn. 428 , , said: “The rule that part performance of a verbal contract for the sale of land takes it out of the operation of the statute of frauds is founded on the equitable doctrine of estoppel, and is applied in all cases where the part performance shown is of such a nature and character that to permit the ven
  • Ferguson v. Trovaten 102 N.W. 373 Minn. 1905
  • Ferguson v. Trovaten 102 N.W. 373 Minn. 1905
    Jorgenson v. Jorgen *214 son, 81 Minn. 428 , .
  • Veum v. Sheeran 92 N.W. 965 Minn. 1903
  • Veum v. Sheeran 92 N.W. 965 Minn. 1903
    The case of Jorgenson v. Jorgenson, 81 Minn. 428 , , cited and relied upon by defendant, is not in point.
  • Jorgenson v. Larson 88 N.W. 439 Minn. 1901
  • Jorgenson v. Larson 88 N.W. 439 Minn. 1901
    See Jorgenson v. Jorgenson, 81 Minn. 428 , .