Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Fritz v. Fritz, 102 N.W. 705.

52 citing documents.

Christie v. Estate 911 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 2018
Christie v. Estate 911 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 2018
Theisen's, Inc. v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. , 309 Minn. 60 , , 148-49 (1976) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Fritz v. Fritz , 94 Minn. 264 , 102 N.W.
SCI Minnesota Funeral Services, Inc. v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp. 779 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Petition of Geis 576 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Manderfeld v. Krovitz 539 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Manderfeld v. Krovitz 539 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
( Fritz v. Fritz, 94 Minn. 264 , 102 N.W.
Owatonna Country Club, Inc. v. Kohlmier 353 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Owatonna Country Club, Inc. v. Kohlmier 353 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
-734 (Minn.1980), and Fritz v. Fritz, 94 Minn. 264 , 102 N.W.
Nichols v. Shelard National Bank 294 N.W.2d 730 Minn. 1980
Nichols v. Shelard National Bank 294 N.W.2d 730 Minn. 1980
Fritz v. Fritz, 94 Minn. 264 , 102 N.W.
Theros v. Phillips 256 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 1977
Theros v. Phillips 256 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 1977
Fritz v. Fritz, 94 Minn. 264 , 102 N.W.
Theisen’s Inc. v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. 243 N.W.2d 145 Minn. 1976
Theisen’s Inc. v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. 243 N.W.2d 145 Minn. 1976
As we said in Fritz v. Fritz, 94 Minn. 264, 266 , : “* * * Before a court of equity will interfere to reform a written instrument it must appear, substantially as alleged in the pleadings, that there was in fact a valid agreement sufficiently expressing in terms the real intention of the parties; that there was in fact a written contra
Cool v. Hubbard 199 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 1972
Cool v. Hubbard 199 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 1972
In Fritz v. Fritz, 94 Minn. 264, 266 , we said: “* * * Before a court of equity will interfere to reform a written instrument it must appear, substantially as alleged in the pleadings, that there was in fact a valid agreement sufficiently expressing in terms the real intention of the parties; that there was in fact a writt
Hockemeyer v. Pooler 130 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 1964
Hockemeyer v. Pooler 130 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 1964
This court in Fritz v. Fritz, 94 Minn. 264, 266 , , said: “* * * Such relief will be extended to those only who have not by their own conduct (as laches, negligence, or otherwise) put themselves in such a position as to render it unjust to change the situation, especially when such change might injuriously affect the rights or status of inno
Northern States Power Co. v. Franklin 122 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1963
Northern States Power Co. v. Franklin 122 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1963
3 Aldrich v. Wilson, 265 Minn. 150 , 120 N. W. (2d) 849 ; Abramson v. Nelson, 263 Minn. 308 , 116 N. W. (2d) 405 ; Fritz v. Fritz, 94 Minn. 264 , ; accord, Cottrell v. Citizens’ Sav.
Aldrich v. Wilson 120 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1963
Aldrich v. Wilson 120 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1963
ment, it must appear “substantially as alleged in the pleadings, that there was in fact a valid agreement sufficiently expressing in terms the real intention of the parties; that there was in fact a written contract which failed to express such true intention; and that this failure was due to mutual mistake, or to mistake of one side and fraud or inequitable conduct of the other.” Fritz v. Fritz, 94 Minn. 264, 266 , .
Abramson v. Nelson 116 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 1962
Abramson v. Nelson 116 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 1962
The rule respecting the evidence essential to a reformation of a contract is well stated in Fritz v. Fritz, 94 Minn. 264, 266 , , where we said: «* * * (a) Before a court of equity will interfere to reform a written instrument it must appear, substantially as alleged in the pleadings, that there was in fact a valid agreement sufficiently expressing in terms, the real intention of the parties; that there was in fact a
Glaser v. Alexander 76 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 1956
Glaser v. Alexander 76 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 1956
In Fritz v. Fritz, 94 Minn. 264, 266 , , a case for reformation, Mr. Justice Jaggard, speaking for this court, summed up the requirements, which it appears may be aptly applied to the situation in this case, as follows: “The determination of the issues in this case involves the application of well-settled and elementary doctrines
Gartner v. Gartner 74 N.W.2d 809 Minn. 1956
Gartner v. Gartner 74 N.W.2d 809 Minn. 1956
3 Fritz v. Fritz, 94 Minn. 264 , ; Norman v. Kelso Farmers Mut.
Farmers' Store of Wheaton, Inc. v. Delaware Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance 59 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1953
Farmers' Store of Wheaton, Inc. v. Delaware Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance 59 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1953
Co. 136 Minn. 34 , ; Fritz v. Fritz, 94 Minn. 264 , ; 5 Dunnell, Dig.
Johnson v. Giese 42 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1950
Johnson v. Giese 42 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1950
Anthony Falls Water *262 Power Co. v. Merriman, 35 Minn. 42 , ; Fritz v. Fritz, 94 Minn. 264 , .
Karger v. Wangerin 40 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 1950
Karger v. Wangerin 40 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 1950
Johnson v. Benham, 163 Minn. 31 , ; Fritz v. Fritz, 94 Minn. 264 , ; Martini v. Christensen, 60 Minn. 491 , ; 5 Dunnell, Dig.
Becker v. Campbell 2 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 1942
Becker v. Campbell 2 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 1942
Fritz v. Fritz, 94 Minn. 264 , .
Wilson v. Bishop 209 N.W. 15 Minn. 1926
Wilson v. Bishop 209 N.W. 15 Minn. 1926
Johnson v. Benham, 163 Minn. 31 , ; Fritz v. Fritz, 94 Minn. 264 , .
Johnson v. Benham 203 N.W. 444 Minn. 1925
Johnson v. Benham 203 N.W. 444 Minn. 1925
l interfere to reform a written instrument it must appear * * * that there was in fact a valid agreement sufficiently, expressing in terms the real intention of the parties; that there was in fact a written contract which failed to express such true intention; and that this failure was due to mutual mistake, or to mistake of one side and fraud or inequitable conduct of the other.” Fritz v. Fritz, 94 Minn. 264 , .
Haley v. Sharon Township Mutual Fire Insurance 179 N.W. 895 Minn. 1920
Haley v. Sharon Township Mutual Fire Insurance 179 N.W. 895 Minn. 1920
In Fritz v. Fritz, 94 Minn. 264 , , the test of the right to reformation at the suit of one guilty of negligence was said to be whether it would be just to change the situation, especially if the change might injuriously affect the rights of innocent third parties.
Mahoney v. Minnesota Farmers Mutual Insurance 161 N.W. 217 Minn. 1917
Mahoney v. Minnesota Farmers Mutual Insurance 161 N.W. 217 Minn. 1917
Fritz v. Fritz, 94 Minn. 264 , .
Barnum v. White 150 N.W. 227 Minn. 1914
Barnum v. White 150 N.W. 227 Minn. 1914
Anthony Falls Water-Power Co. v. Merriman, 35 Minn. 42 , ; Fritz v. Fritz, 94 Minn. 264 , .
Norman v. Kelso Farmers Mutual Fire Insurance 130 N.W. 13 Minn. 1911
Norman v. Kelso Farmers Mutual Fire Insurance 130 N.W. 13 Minn. 1911
Defendant has referred us to Fritz v. Fritz, 94 Minn. 264 , .
Efta v. Swanson 123 N.W. 56 Minn. 1909
Efta v. Swanson 123 N.W. 56 Minn. 1909
Fritz v. Fritz, 94 Minn. 264 , .