Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Oertel v. Pierce, 133 N.W. 797.

39 citing documents.

Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Minneapolis v. Community Insurance Agency, Inc. 359 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Minneapolis v. Community Insurance Agency, Inc. 359 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Oertel v. Pierce, 116 Minn. 266 , 133 N.W.
Indianhead Truck Line, Inc. v. Hvidsten Transport, Inc. 128 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 1964
Indianhead Truck Line, Inc. v. Hvidsten Transport, Inc. 128 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 1964
See, Murphy v. Anderson, 128 Minn. 106 , ; Oertel v. Pierce, 116 Minn. 266 , , Ann. Cas.
Veranth v. Moravitz 284 N.W. 849 Minn. 1939
Veranth v. Moravitz 284 N.W. 849 Minn. 1939
gage foreclosure sale, as in Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 (see Locke v. Darelius, 140 Minn. 206 , ) ; or whether it is an extension of time of payment whereby the plaintiff waived and abandoned the rights which she acquired as purchaser at the mortgage foreclosure sale, and in legal effect annulled the sale and continued the relation of mortgagor and mortgagee, Oertel v. Pierce, 116 Minn. 266 , , Ann. Cas.
Borowski v. Sargent 246 N.W. 540 Minn. 1933
Hartigan v. Norwich Union Indemnity Co. 246 N.W. 477 Minn. 1933
Hartigan v. Norwich Union Indemnity Co. 246 N.W. 477 Minn. 1933
Oertel v. Pierce, 116 Minn. 266 , , Ann. Cas.
Investors Syndicate v. Horrigan 244 N.W. 65 Minn. 1932
Investors Syndicate v. Horrigan 244 N.W. 65 Minn. 1932
The defendants rely much on Oertel v. Pierce, 116 Minn. 266 , , Ann. Cas.
Sommers v. City of St. Paul 237 N.W. 427 Minn. 1931
Sommers v. City of St. Paul 237 N.W. 427 Minn. 1931
D. Assn. 82 Minn. 215 , ; Treat v. Kellogg, 104 Minn. 54 , ; Oertel v. Pierce, 116 Minn. 266 , , Ann. Cas.
Ellingson v. State Bank of Hoffman 234 N.W. 867 Minn. 1931
Ellingson v. State Bank of Hoffman 234 N.W. 867 Minn. 1931
Oertel v. Pierce, 116 Minn. 266 , , Ann. Cas.
In Re Estate of Mollan 232 N.W. 1 Minn. 1930
In Re Estate of Mollan 232 N.W. 1 Minn. 1930
Oertel v. Pierce, 116 Minn. 266 , , Ann. Cas.
Lynch v. Higgins 191 N.W. 422 Minn. 1923
Lynch v. Higgins 191 N.W. 422 Minn. 1923
Oertel v. Pierce, 116 Minn. 266 , , Ann. Cas.
Kueffner v. Gottfried 191 N.W. 271 Minn. 1922
Kueffner v. Gottfried 191 N.W. 271 Minn. 1922
and satisfactory,” Jensen v. Crevier, 33 Minn. 372 , ; Allen v. McIntyre, 56 Minn. 351 , ; Lunschen v. Peterson, 120 Minn. 288 , ; “clear and practically conclusive,” Vaule v. Miller, 69 Minn. 440 , ; “positive, satisfactory and convincing,” Osman v. Wisted, 78 Minn. 295 , ; “unequivocal, clear and convincing,” Oertel v. Pierce, 116 Minn. 266 , , Ann. Cas.
In re the Assessment of Benefits, Costs & Expenses 181 N.W. 859 Minn. 1921
In re the Assessment of Benefits, Costs & Expenses 181 N.W. 859 Minn. 1921
See Oertel v. Pierce, 116 Minn. 266 , , Ann. Cas.
Rechtzigel v. National Casualty Co. 173 N.W. 670 Minn. 1919
Rechtzigel v. National Casualty Co. 173 N.W. 670 Minn. 1919
Oertel v. Pierce, 116 Minn. 266 , , Ann. Cas.
Locke v. Darelius 168 N.W. 24 Minn. 1918
Locke v. Darelius 168 N.W. 24 Minn. 1918
The record does not present a case-of the waiver of rights acquired under a foreclosure such as was involved in Oertel v. Pierce, 116 Minn. 266 , , Ann. Cas.
Young v. Baker 151 N.W. 132 Minn. 1915
Young v. Baker 151 N.W. 132 Minn. 1915
Oertel v. Pierce, 116 Minn. 266 , , Ann. Cas.
Murphy v. Anderson 150 N.W. 387 Minn. 1914
Murphy v. Anderson 150 N.W. 387 Minn. 1914
As said in Oertel v. Pierce, 116 Minn. 266 , , Ann. Cas.
Freeburg v. Honemann 147 N.W. 827 Minn. 1914
Freeburg v. Honemann 147 N.W. 827 Minn. 1914
Oertel v. Pierce, 116 Minn. 266 , , Ann. Cas.
Eyre v. City of Faribault 141 N.W. 170 Minn. 1913
Eyre v. City of Faribault 141 N.W. 170 Minn. 1913
The evidence must be clearly against the findings in either case to justify a reversal.” Oertel v. Pierce, 116 Minn. 266 , .
Bridgeman v. Giese 139 N.W. 489 Minn. 1913
Holien v. Slee 139 N.W. 493 Minn. 1913
Bridgeman v. Giese 139 N.W. 489 Minn. 1913
In this connection the defendant concedes that the rule of procedure is, as stated in Northland Produce Co. v. Stephens, 116 Minn. 23, 28 , , and Oertel v. Pierce, 116 Minn. 266 , , that our duty is only to inquire whether the evidence supports the finding of the trial court, and that in order to justify a reversal the evidence must be clearly against the findings, but contends that there was in this case no evidence at all to sustain the one in question.
Holien v. Slee 139 N.W. 493 Minn. 1913
This rule, however, must be taken together with another rule, announced by Mr. Justice Brown in Oertel v. Pierce, 116 Minn. 266 , , as follows: “The rule guiding this court in the consideration of the-question of whether the findings of the trial court are sustained by the evidence remains the same, whether the fact found be required to be established by a preponderance of the evidence, or by clear, convincing, or satisfactory ev