DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Swallow v. Strong, 85 N.W. 942.

29 citing documents.

  • TRI-STATE INS. CO. OF MINN. v. Bontjes 488 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    Louis Park, 279 Minn. 366 , (knowledge of filing does not satisfy requirement for service of written notice for computing time for moving for new trial); Levine v. Barrett & Barrett, 83 Minn. 145 , (service of written notice of filing by defendant on plaintiff does not limit time for defendant to appeal from order).
  • Greer v. Kooiker 253 N.W.2d 133 Minn. 1977
  • Greer v. Kooiker 253 N.W.2d 133 Minn. 1977
    Radke v. Brenon, 271 Minn. 35, 38 , Doyle v. Wohlrabe, 243 Minn. 107 , Scott v. Marquette National Bank, 173 Minn. 225 , *505 Swallow v. Strong, 83 Minn. 87
  • Radke v. Brenon 134 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 1965
  • Radke v. Brenon 134 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 1965
    or memorandum there *38 of, expressing the consideration, is in writing and subscribed by the party by whom the lease or sale is to be made, or by his lawful agent thereunto authorized in writing; and no such contract, when made by an agent, shall be entitled to record unless the authority of such agent be also recorded.” 2 Doyle v. Wohlrabe, 243 Minn. 107 , 66 N. W. (2d) 757 ; Swallow v. Strong, 83 Minn. 87 , .
  • State v. Independent School District No. 31 116 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 1962
    Strand v. Chicago G. W. R. Co. 147 Minn. 1 , ; Levine v. Barrett & Barrett, 83 Minn. 145 , , .
  • Miracle Construction Co. v. Miller 87 N.W.2d 665 Minn. 1958
  • Miracle Construction Co. v. Miller 87 N.W.2d 665 Minn. 1958
    Bank, 173 Minn. 225 , ; Swallow v. Strong, 83 Minn. 87 , ; Nippolt v. Kammon, 39 Minn. 372 , ; Ham v. Johnson, 51 Minn. 105 , ; Tice v. Freeman, 30 Minn. 389 , ; Paynesville Land Co. v. Grabow, 160 Minn. 414, 422 , .
  • Colstad v. Levine 67 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1954
  • Colstad v. Levine 67 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1954
    4 Doyle v. Wohlrabe, 243 Minn. 107 , 66 N. W. (2d) 757 ; Swallow v. Strong, 83 Minn. 87 , ; The Gregory Co. v. Shapiro, 125 Minn. 81 , ; see, 49 Am.
  • Doyle v. Wohlrabe 66 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1954
  • Doyle v. Wohlrabe 66 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1954
    2 See, The Gregory Co. v. Shapiro, 125 Minn. 81 , ; Swallow v. Strong, 83 Minn. 87 , ; Taylor v. Allen, 40 Minn. 433 , ; Quinn v. Champagne, 38 Minn. 322 , ; Tice v. Freeman, 30 Minn. 389 , ; Restatement, Contracts, § 207; 2 Corbin, Contracts, § 505; Annotation, 23 A. L. R. (2d) 6; 49 Am.
  • State Ex Rel. Kruse v. Webster 43 N.W.2d 116 Minn. 1950
    In Levine v. Barrett Barrett, 83 Minn. 145 , , 87 N.W.
  • Kohagen-Mendenhall Co. v. Joyce 21 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1945
  • Kohagen-Mendenhall Co. v. Joyce 21 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1945
    The rule is expressed in Swallow v. Strong, 83 Minn. 87, 93 , , as follows: “* * * It is not, however, essential that the land should be described with precision, if the writing is on its face an adequate guide to find it.” It is true that the owner of the premises did not execute the memorandum as vendor.
  • Eklund v. Kapetas 11 N.W.2d 805 Minn. 1943
    This rule was applied in Levine v. Barrett & Barrett, 83 Minn. 145 , , , where suit was brought to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff, who fell into an excavation adjacent to defendant’s building.
  • State Ex Rel. Weiss v. Moriarty 279 N.W. 835 Minn. 1938
    Levine v. Barrett & Barrett, 83 Minn. 145 , , .
  • Malcolmson v. Goodhue County National Bank 270 N.W. 157 Minn. 1936
    Levine v. Barrett Barrett, 83 Minn. 145 , , 87 N.W.
  • Backstrom v. New York Life Insurance Co. 244 N.W. 64 Minn. 1932
    In Levine v. Barrett & Barrett, 83 Minn. 145 , , , the court assumes that the order granting a new trial is to be entered or filed by the clerk to be effective as to the parties; and in Elliott v. Retail H. M. F. Ins.
  • State Ex Rel. Driscoll v. Enersen 236 N.W. 488 Minn. 1931
    Levine v. Barrett & Barrett, 83 Minn. 145 , , ; State ex rel.
  • McGuckin v. Harvey 225 N.W. 19 Minn. 1929
  • McGuckin v. Harvey 225 N.W. 19 Minn. 1929
    We note the following cases as of illustrative value: Swallow v. Strong, 83 Minn. 87 , ; Womack v. Coleman, 89 Minn. 17 , ; Id.
  • Strand v. Chicago Great Western Railroad 179 N.W. 369 Minn. 1920
    Levine v. Barrett, 83 Minn. 145 , , .
  • Hess v. Great Northern Railway Co. 108 N.W. 7 Minn. 1906
    Co., 81 Minn. 130 , ; Levine v. Barrett & Barrett, 83 Minn. 145 , , ; Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , .
  • Welsh v. Brainerd 103 N.W. 1031 Minn. 1905
  • Welsh v. Brainerd 103 N.W. 1031 Minn. 1905
    Swallow v. Strong, 83 Minn. 87 , .
  • Weller v. Minnesota Land & Colonization Co. 91 N.W. 891 Minn. 1902
  • Weller v. Minnesota Land & Colonization Co. 91 N.W. 891 Minn. 1902
    Swallow v. Strong, 83 Minn. 87 , .
  • Swanson v. Andrus 87 N.W. 363 Minn. 1901
    G. S. 1894, § 6138; Levine v. Barrett & Barrett, 83 Minn. 145 , .