Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Evans, 191 N.W. 425.

35 citing documents.

State v. Investors Security Corporation 209 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 1973
State v. Investors Security Corporation 209 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 1973
ltivate and market crops and share proceeds with purchaser are securities); State v. Swenson, 172 Minn. 277 , (interest in invention a security); State v. Bushard, 164 Minn. 455 , (contract for sale of bus with profit-sharing arrangement a security); State v. Ogden, 154 Minn. 425 , (profit-sharing contract a security); State v. Evans, 154 Minn. 95 , (contract which included option to purchase real estate a security); State v. Gopher Tire & Rubber Co. 146 Minn. 52 , (investment contract a sec
State v. Moseng 95 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 1959
State v. Moseng 95 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 1959
Also see, United States v. Lacher, 134 U. S. 624 , 10 S. Ct. 625 , 33 L. ed. 1080; State v. Hayes, 244 Minn. 296 , 70 N. W. (2d) 110 ; State v. Evans, 154 Minn. 95 , , 27 A. L. R. 1165; State v. Kelly, 218 Minn. 247 , 15 N. W. (2d) 554 , 162 A. L. R. 477, with Annotation at 495; 50 Am.
Western States Utilities Co. v. City of Waseca 65 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1954
Western States Utilities Co. v. City of Waseca 65 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1954
State v. Cassidy, supra; State v. Evans, 154 Minn. 95 , , 27 A. L. R. 1165; Lyman v. Chase, 178 Minn. 244, 251 , .
City of St. Paul v. Hall 58 N.W.2d 761 Minn. 1953
City of St. Paul v. Hall 58 N.W.2d 761 Minn. 1953
See, State v. Evans, 154 Minn. 95 , , 27 A. L. R. 1165; United States v. Lacher, 134 U. S. 624 , 10 S. Ct. 625 , 33 L. ed. 1080; 14 Am.
State v. Lorentz 22 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1946
State v. Lorentz 22 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1946
The statute makes specific mention of stock which, properly speaking, is not a security, and follows the enumeration of investments which fall within its scope with the words, ‘herein called securities,’ indicating that the legislature has not used the term ‘securities’ in a literal but in a broad sense.” This rule was restated and followed in State v. Evans, 154 Minn. 95 , , 27 A. L. R. 1165.
State v. Hofacre 288 N.W. 13 Minn. 1939
State v. Hofacre 288 N.W. 13 Minn. 1939
Minnesota has perhaps gone farthest in extending to the investor the protection of such ‘blue sky’ laws against many ■questionable get-rich-quick investment devices.” Citing in support the following cases decided by this court: State v. Gopher T. & R. Co. 146 Minn. 52 , ; State v. Evans, 154 Minn. 95 , , 27 A. L. R. 1165; State v. Ogden, 154 Minn. 425 , ; State v. Swenson, 172 Minn. 277 , ; Kerst v. Nelson, 171 Minn. 191 , , 54 A. L. R. 495.
State v. Robbins 240 N.W. 456 Minn. 1932
State v. Robbins 240 N.W. 456 Minn. 1932
State v. Gopher T. & R. Co. 146 Minn. 52 , ; State v. Evans, 154 Minn. 95 , , 27 A. L. R. 1165; State v. Ogden, 154 Minn. 425 , ; State v. Bushard, 164 Minn. 455 , ; Kerst v. Nelson, 171 Minn. 191 , , 54 A. L. R. 495; State v. Swenson, 172 Minn. 277 , , 54 A. L. R. 490; State v. Code, 178 Minn. 492 , .
State v. Code 227 N.W. 652 Minn. 1929
State v. Code 227 N.W. 652 Minn. 1929
See also State v. Summerland, 150 Minn. 266 , ; State v. Evans, 154 Minn. 95 , , 27 A. L. R. 1165; State v. Ogden, 154 Minn. 425 , ; State v. Bushard, 164 Minn. 455 , ; Kerst v. Nelson, 171 Minn. 191 , , 54 A. L. R. 495.
State v. Swenson 215 N.W. 177 Minn. 1927
State v. Swenson 215 N.W. 177 Minn. 1927
State v. Gopher T. & R. Co. 146 Minn. 52 , ; State v. Summerland, 150 Minn. 266 , ; State v. Evans, 354 Minn. 95 , , 27 A. L. R. 1165; State v. Ogden, 154 Minn. 425 , ; State v. Summerland, 155 Minn. 395 , ; State v. Bushard, 164 Minn. 455 , ; State v. Nordstrom, 169 Minn. 214 , ; Kerst v. Nelson, 171 Minn. 191 , .
Kerst v. Nelson 213 N.W. 904 Minn. 1927
Kerst v. Nelson 213 N.W. 904 Minn. 1927
A case more nearly like this is State v. Evans, 154 Minn. 95 , , 27 A. L. R. 1165.
Webster v. U. S. I. Realty Co. 212 N.W. 806 Minn. 1927
Webster v. U. S. I. Realty Co. 212 N.W. 806 Minn. 1927
Such a contract was considered by this court in the case of State v. Evans, 154 Minn. 95 , , 27 A. L. R. 1165, and in Vercellini v. U. S. I. Realty Co. 158 Minn. 72 , , where it was held to be an investment contract, under L. 1917, p. 635, c. 429, as amended by L. 1919, p. 99, c. 105.
Hanneman v. Gratz 211 N.W. 961 Minn. 1927
Hanneman v. Gratz 211 N.W. 961 Minn. 1927
It is entirely unlike the schemes and palpable efforts to evade the law which were considered in State v. Gopher T. & R. Co. 146 Minn. 52 , ; State v. Evans, 154 Minn. 95 , , 27 A. L. R. 1165; State v. Ogden, 154 Minn. 425 , ; State v. Nordstrom, 169 Minn. 214 , .
State v. Nordstrom 210 N.W. 1001 Minn. 1926
State v. Nordstrom 210 N.W. 1001 Minn. 1926
State v. Gopher T. & R. Co. 146 Minn. 52 , (certificates promising share in profits in consideration of services); State v. Summerland, 150 Minn. 266 , (“Units” entitling owner to beneficial interest); State v. Evans, 154 Minn. 95 , , 27 A. L. R. 1165 (“investment contract”); State v. Ogden, 154 Minn. 425 , State v. Summerland, 155 Minn. 395 , ; State v. Bushard, 164 Minn. 455
State v. Bushard 205 N.W. 370 Minn. 1925
State v. Bushard 205 N.W. 370 Minn. 1925
It was quite as much an investment contract as those involved in State v. Gopher Tire & Rubber Co. 146 Minn. 52 , , and State v. Evans, 154 Minn. 95 , , 27 A. L. R. 1165, the two leading' cases, or the so-called “units” involved in State v. Summerland, 150 Minn. 266 , , or the “statement and purchase” giving certain “units” in oil lands, involved in State v. Ogden, 154 Minn. 425 , .
Reilly v. Clyne 234 P. 35 Ariz. 1925
Vercellini v. U. S. I. Realty Co. 196 N.W. 672 Minn. 1924
Vercellini v. U. S. I. Realty Co. 196 N.W. 672 Minn. 1924
A copy of the contract was made part of the complaint and is identical in form with the contract involved in State v. Evans, 154 Minn. 95 , .
State v. Summerland 193 N.W. 699 Minn. 1923
State v. Summerland 193 N.W. 699 Minn. 1923
In State v. Evans, 154 Minn. 95 , , the defendants, who had no license from the commission, were charged with selling an investment contract issued by the TJ.
State v. Ogden 191 N.W. 916 Minn. 1923
State v. Ogden 191 N.W. 916 Minn. 1923
These are the substantial provisions of the instrument designated “statement and purchase.” It differs, of course, from other contracts which we have had before us, but it is an investment contract within State v. Gopher T. R. & Co. 146 Minn. 52 , ; State v. Summerland, 150 Minn. 266 , ; and State v. Evans, 154 Minn. 95 , .