Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Peterson v. First National Bank of Ceylon, 203 N.W. 53.

50 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Tamara Ann Fonoti, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Short Line Terminal Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 242 Minn. 1, 7, (approving the statement “that it is fallacious to hold that the presumption that everybody knows the law supplies adequate constructive notice” in some circumstances); Peterson v. First Nat’l Bank of Ceylon, 162 Minn. 369, 375, 203 N.W.
First Minnesota Bank v. Overby Development, Inc. 783 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
First Minnesota Bank v. Overby Development, Inc. 783 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
816, 816 (1927) (observing that the mortgagee’s attorney made a clear unilateral mistake by mistakenly identifying the lots being foreclosed and affirming equitable relief to mortgagee to fix the error); Peterson v. First Nat'l Bank, 162 Minn. 369, 371-72 , 203 N.W.
Programmed Land, Inc. v. O'CONNOR 602 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Programmed Land, Inc. v. O'CONNOR 602 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Peterson v. First Nat’l Bank, 162 Minn. 369, 376 , 203 N.W.
Pole v. Trudeau 516 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Pole v. Trudeau 516 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Peterson v. First Nat’l Bank of Ceylon, 162 Minn. 369, 379 , 203 N.W.
Anderson v. Peterson's North Branch Mill, Inc. 503 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Anderson v. Peterson's North Branch Mill, Inc. 503 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
The district court relieved Mill of Pinotti’s mistaken bid under Peterson v. First Nat’l Bank of Ceylon, 162 Minn. 369, 379 , 203 N.W.
TCF Banking & Savings, F.A. v. Loft Homes, Inc. 439 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
TCF Banking & Savings, F.A. v. Loft Homes, Inc. 439 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
816 (1927), and Peterson v. First National Bank of Ceylon, 162 Minn. 369, 379 , 203 N.W.
Winter v. Skoglund 404 N.W.2d 786 Minn. 1987
Farmers State Bank of Delavan v. Jenkins 403 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Farmers State Bank of Delavan v. Jenkins 403 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Peterson v. First National Bank of Ceylon, 162 Minn. 369 , 203 N.W.
Gartner v. Eikill 319 N.W.2d 397 Minn. 1982
Gartner v. Eikill 319 N.W.2d 397 Minn. 1982
Furthermore, respondents’ argument that the conveyance may not be rescinded on the ground that the mistake was one of law rather than of fact is not particularly significant in light of this court’s statement in Peterson v. First National Bank, 162 Minn. 369 , 203 N.W.
Fenrick v. Olson 131 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 1964
Fenrick v. Olson 131 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 1964
Bank, 162 Minn. 369 , , 42 A. L. R. 1185; St.
Gethsemane Lutheran Church v. Zacho 104 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1960
Gethsemane Lutheran Church v. Zacho 104 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1960
Bank, 162 Minn. 369 , , 42 A. L. R. 1185.
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
Bank, 162 Minn. 369 , , 42 A. L. R. 1185; Columbian Nat.
Lee v. Construction Service, Inc. 28 N.W.2d 69 Minn. 1947
Lee v. Construction Service, Inc. 28 N.W.2d 69 Minn. 1947
The most enlightening decision in this state sustaining this view is Peterson v. First National Bank, 162 Minn. 369 , , 42 A. L. R. 1185.
Holmes v. Conter 295 N.W. 649 Minn. 1941
Holmes v. Conter 295 N.W. 649 Minn. 1941
Bank, 162 Minn. 369 , , 42 A. L. R. 1185.
In Re Estate of Daniel 294 N.W. 465 Minn. 1940
Whitney v. Daniel 208 Minn. 420 Minn. 1940
Whitney v. Daniel 208 Minn. 420 Minn. 1940
Bank, 162 Minn. 369 , , 42 A. L. R. 1185.
In Re Estate of Daniel 294 N.W. 465 Minn. 1940
Bank, 162 Minn. 369 , 203 N.W.
Stark v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States 285 N.W. 466 Minn. 1939
Stark v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States 285 N.W. 466 Minn. 1939
Bank, 162 Minn. 369, 375 , , 42 A. L. R. 1185, where in relieving a parly from a serious mistake of law on the part of his own attorney, the court said: “The idea that equity has no relief from mistakes of law had its origin ,in the almost humorous and wholly supposititious presumption that all know the law — a propositi
Hosford v. Board of Education 280 N.W. 859 Minn. 1938
Hirleman v. Nickels 258 N.W. 13 Minn. 1934
Hirleman v. Nickels 258 N.W. 13 Minn. 1934
Bank, 162 Minn. 369 , , 42 A. L. R. 1185; Kellogg Bros. Lbr.
Des Moines Joint Stock Land Bank v. Danicourt 241 N.W. 393 Minn. 1932
Des Moines Joint Stock Land Bank v. Danicourt 241 N.W. 393 Minn. 1932
Bank, 162 Minn. 369 , , 42 A. L. R. 1185.
Becker v. Bundy 225 N.W. 290 Minn. 1929
Becker v. Bundy 225 N.W. 290 Minn. 1929
Bank, 162 Minn. 369 , , 42 A. L. R. 1185; Romkey v. Saumweber, 170 Minn. 438 , ; Moffett, Hodgkins & Clarke Co. v. Rochester, 178 U. S. 373 , 20 S. Ct. 957 , 44 L. ed. 1108; Frazer v. State Bank of Decatur, 101 Ark.
Federal Land Bank v. Neff 219 N.W. 914 Minn. 1928
Federal Land Bank v. Neff 219 N.W. 914 Minn. 1928
Bank, 162 Minn. 369 , , 42 A. L. R. 1185; 4 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
Williams v. Williams 256 P. 356 Ariz. 1927
Romkey v. Saumweber 212 N.W. 816 Minn. 1927
Romkey v. Saumweber 212 N.W. 816 Minn. 1927
Bank of Ceylon, 162 Minn. 369 , , 42 A. L. R. 1185.
Nadeau v. Maryland Casualty Co. 212 N.W. 595 Minn. 1927
Nadeau v. Maryland Casualty Co. 212 N.W. 595 Minn. 1927
Bank of Ceylon, 162 Minn. 369 , , 42 A. L. R. 1185).
Pieh v. Flitton 211 N.W. 964 Minn. 1927
Pieh v. Flitton 211 N.W. 964 Minn. 1927
Bank, 162 Minn. 369 , , 42 A. L. R. 1185, and that an erroneous statement of the law is regarded as a mere expression of opinion on which the hearer has no right to rely.
Olson v. Shephard 206 N.W. 711 Minn. 1926
Olson v. Shephard 206 N.W. 711 Minn. 1926
*437 Bank, 162 Minn. 369 , ; Hearne v. N. E. Mut.