DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Schuneman v. Tolman, 88 N.W. 1103.

20 citing documents.

  • Citimortgage, Inc. v. Norbert A. Kraus, John Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Citimortgage, Inc. v. Norbert A. Kraus, John Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    In light of the record before us, the meritless legal arguments made by the Krauses, and the lack of any ambiguity in controlling law, we adopt the language of our supreme court in Schuneman v. Tolman, 85 Minn. 130, 88 N.W.
  • Romain v. Pebble Creek Partners 310 N.W.2d 118 Minn. 1981
    Notice was not necessary in Chapman v. Salem Lutheran Church, 301 Minn. 486 , Liebsch v. Abbott, 265 Minn. 447 , and Joslyn v. Schwend, 85 Minn. 130 , 88 N.W.
  • Space Center, Inc. v. 451 CORP. 298 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 1980
    In Joslyn v. Schwend, 85 Minn. 130 , 88 N.W.
  • Rooney v. Dayton-Hudson Corp. 246 N.W.2d 170 Minn. 1976
    Wurdemann v. Hjelm, 257 Minn. 450 , , certiorari denied, 364 U. S. 894 , 81 S. Ct. 222 , 5 L. ed. 2d 187 (1960); Joslyn v. Schwend, 85 Minn. 130
  • Liebsch v. Abbott 122 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 1963
    In Joslyn v. Schwend, 85 Minn. 130 , , the vendee brought an action to enforce specific performance of a contract for sale of land and the trial court found in his favor.
  • Raymond v. McKenzie 19 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1945
    Co. 42 Minn. 194 , ; Heisley v. Swanstrom, 40 Minn 196, ; Joslyn v. Schwend, 85 Minn. 130 , ; Kasal v. Hlinka, 118 Minn. 37 , ; Nostdal v. Morehart, 132 Minn. 351 , ; Horseth v. Fuglesteen, 165 Minn. 38 , ; Miller v. O. B. McClintock Co. 210 Minn. 152 , ; Kirk v. Welch, 212 Minn. 300 , 3 N. W. (2d) 426 .
  • Hove v. Hove 18 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1945
    Thorem v. Thorem, 188 Minn. 153 , ; Jokela v. Jokela, 111 Minn. 403 , ; Colahan v. Colahan, 88 Minn. 94 , ; Reibeling v. Reibeling, 85 Minn. 383 , .
  • Thorem v. Thorem 246 N.W. 674 Minn. 1933
    Reibeling v. Reibeling, 85 Minn. 383 , ; Colahan v. Colahan, 88 Minn. 94 , ; Jokela v. Jokela, 111 Minn. 403 , .
  • Joslyn v. Irwin-Dick Co. 209 N.W. 889 Minn. 1926
    The following may be noted as involving some features similar to the situation here, and to that extent helpful: George v. Conhaim, 38 Minn. 338 , ; Horn v. Butler, 39 Minn. 515 , ; Ladd v. Weiskopf, 62 Minn. 29 , , 69 L. R. A. 785; Joslyn v. Schwend, 85 Minn. 130 , ; Howe v. Coates, 97 Minn. 385 , , *276 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1170, 114 Am.
  • Ballard v. Friedman 187 N.W. 518 Minn. 1922
    Respondents rely entirely on Joslyn v. Schwend, 85 Minn. 130 , .
  • Nostdal v. Morehart 157 N.W. 584 Minn. 1916
    Mackey v. Ames, 31 Minn. 103 , ; Heisley v. Swanstrom, 40 Minn. 196 , ; Joslyn v. Schwend, 85 Minn. 130 , ; Schwab v. Baremore, 95 Minn. 295 , ; Hubechek v. Maxbass Security Bank, 117 Minn. 163 , , Ann. Cas.
  • Finnes v. Selover, Bates & Co. 113 N.W. 883 Minn. 1907
    Joslyn v. Schwend, 85 Minn. 130 , .
  • C. H. Phinney Land Co. v. Coolidge-Schussler Co. 105 N.W. 553 Minn. 1906
    Joslyn v. Schwend, 85 Minn. 130 , ; Womack v. Coleman, 92 Minn. 328 , .
  • Distinguished Schwab v. Baremore 104 N.W. 10 Minn. 1905
    Co., 42 Minn. 194 , ; Heisley v. Swanstrom, 40 Minn. 196 , ; Joslyn v. Schwend, 85 Minn. 130 , .
  • Tingue v. Patch 101 N.W. 792 Minn. 1904
    Joslyn v. Schwend, 85 Minn. 130 , .
  • Womack v. Coleman 100 N.W. 9 Minn. 1904
    Joslyn v. Schwend, 85 Minn. 130 , .
  • Murray v. Nickerson 95 N.W. 898 Minn. 1903
    If this is the construction to be given to the contract, it follows that the conclusion is correct, and the case would be ruled by Joslyn v. Schwend, 85 Minn. 130 , .
  • Lamprey v. St. Paul & Chicago Railway Co. 94 N.W. 555 Minn. 1903
    The cases of Western Realty Co. v. Phelps, 86 Minn. 52 , , and Joslyn v. Schwend, 85 Minn. 130 , , cited by the defendants, are not here in point.
  • Burrows v. Western Union Telegraph Co. 90 N.W. 1111 Minn. 1902