Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Nelson v. Berkner, 166 N.W. 347.

45 citing documents.

State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Alpine Air Products, Inc. 500 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 1993
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Alpine Air Products, Inc. 500 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 1993
The authority the Weise court cited for the higher standard of proof was Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 301 , 166 N.W.
Taylor v. Sheehan 435 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Taylor v. Sheehan 435 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
ANALYSIS I. Standard of Proof Sheehan argues that “[f]raud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, especially where a party seeks to avoid the effects of a written instrument.” See Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199, 203 , (citing Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 301 , 166 N.W.
Sievert v. LaMarca 367 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Sievert v. LaMarca 367 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199, 203 , (relying on Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 301 , 166 N.W.
Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. 175 N.W.2d 184 Minn. 1970
Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. 175 N.W.2d 184 Minn. 1970
Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 301 , .
Hockemeyer v. Pooler 130 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 1964
Hockemeyer v. Pooler 130 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 1964
Co. 114 Minn. 358 , ; Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 301 , .
Watkins v. Lorenz 119 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1963
Watkins v. Lorenz 119 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1963
Remington v. Savage, 148 Minn. 405 , ; Rosenquist v. Baker, supra; Nelson v. Moore, 193 Minn. 455 , ; Bakke v. Keller, 220 Minn. 383 , 19 N. W. (2d) 803 ; Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 301 , .
Dahmes v. Industrial Credit Co. 110 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1961
Dahmes v. Industrial Credit Co. 110 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1961
Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 301 , .
Rosenquist v. Baker 35 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 1948
Rosenquist v. Baker 35 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 1948
Co. 114 Minn. 358 , ; Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 301 , .
Henvit v. Keller 15 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1944
Henvit v. Keller 15 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1944
Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 301, 306 , ; Seifert v. Mutual Benefit L. Ins.
Strader v. Haley 12 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1943
Strader v. Haley 12 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1943
Dickinson v. Citizens I. & F. Co. 139 Minn. 201, 204 , (a case of ratification by a corporation of its attorney’s acts); Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 301, 305 , (contract provision held not to preclude vendee from showing fraud in its procurement); Edward Thompson Co. v. Schroeder, 131 Minn. 125, 128 , (to same effect, where there was a sale of lawbooks).
Northrop v. Piper 271 N.W. 487 Minn. 1937
Northrop v. Piper 271 N.W. 487 Minn. 1937
Plaintiff’s case is one of hope deferred rather than of fraudulent misrepresentations, within the rule of Nelson v. Berliner, 139 Minn. 301, 307 , , that there is no fraud in a “promissory representation which is plainly contradicted by the undertaking or stipulations” of a binding written contract.
Carney v. Farmers & Merchants State Bank 263 N.W. 901 Minn. 1935
Carney v. Farmers & Merchants State Bank 263 N.W. 901 Minn. 1935
Corp. 159 Minn. 238 , ; Nelson v. Berkner, 339 Minn. 301 , .
Greear v. Paust 256 N.W. 190 Minn. 1934
Greear v. Paust 256 N.W. 190 Minn. 1934
The promisee would then know that the promise was false, or could not be kept, if what was written was to have any effect, and consequently could not rely thereon.” Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 301, 307 , .
McCreight v. Davey Tree Expert Co. 254 N.W. 623 Minn. 1934
McCreight v. Davey Tree Expert Co. 254 N.W. 623 Minn. 1934
Comment d.) Apropos of that is this comment from Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 301, 307 , , 349: “So with a fraudulent promissory representation Avhich is plainly contradicted by the undertaking or the stipulations in the written agreement.
McDermott v. Ralich 247 N.W. 683 Minn. 1933
McDermott v. Ralich 247 N.W. 683 Minn. 1933
Co. 40 Minn. 476 , ; Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 301 , ; Smith v. Vosika, 163 Minn. 12 , ; Guy T. Bisbee Co. v. Granite City Inv.
Maguire v. Maguire 214 N.W. 666 Minn. 1927
Maguire v. Maguire 214 N.W. 666 Minn. 1927
477 ; Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 301 , 166 N.W.
Ganley Brothers, Inc. v. Butler Brothers Bldg. Co. 212 N.W. 602 Minn. 1927
Ganley Brothers, Inc. v. Butler Brothers Bldg. Co. 212 N.W. 602 Minn. 1927
Co. v. O’Connell, 118 Minn. 53 , ; Edward Thompson Co. v. Schroeder, 131 Minn. 125 , ; Hansen v. Daniel Hayes Co. 152 Minn. 222 , ; Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 301 , ; Roseberry v. Hart-Parr Co. 145 Minn. 142 , ; Remington v. Savage, 148 Minn. 405 , ; 22 C. J. 1215; Jordan v. Nelson (Iowa), , 10 A. L. R. 1464; Rectenbaugh v. N. W. Port Huron Co. 22 S. D. 410, ; Jones v. Brandt, 173 Wis.
Picha v. Central Metropolitan Bank 201 N.W. 315 Minn. 1925
Picha v. Central Metropolitan Bank 201 N.W. 315 Minn. 1925
Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 301 , 166 N.W.
Guy T. Bisbee Co. v. Granite City Investing Corp. 199 N.W. 14 Minn. 1924
Guy T. Bisbee Co. v. Granite City Investing Corp. 199 N.W. 14 Minn. 1924
* * * But, if the party making the promise has no intention of keeping it, the promise becomes an actionable misrepresentation.” Many of the authorities are cited in Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 801 , , a leading case on this point.
Hansen v. Daniel Hayes Co. 188 N.W. 317 Minn. 1922
Hansen v. Daniel Hayes Co. 188 N.W. 317 Minn. 1922
Co. v. O’Connell, 118 Minn. 53 , ; Edward Thompson Co. v. Schroeder, 131 Minn. 125 , ; Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 301 , .
Stansberry v. Monitor Stove Co. 183 N.W. 977 Minn. 1921
Remington v. Savage 182 N.W. 524 Minn. 1921
Remington v. Savage 182 N.W. 524 Minn. 1921
The latest expressions of the court upon this subject are found in the opinion of Mr. Justice Holt in Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 301 , .
Roseberry v. Hart-Parr Co. 176 N.W. 175 Minn. 1920
Roseberry v. Hart-Parr Co. 176 N.W. 175 Minn. 1920
General Electric Co. v. O’Connell, 118 Minn. 53 , 136 N W. 404; Edward Thompson Co. v. Schroeder, 131 Minn. 125 , 154 N W. 792; Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 301 , .