Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kingery v. Kingery, 241 N.W. 583.

26 citing documents.

MOAC Mall Holdings, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Co., d at 497 (concluding that equitable relief was unavailable because the parties’ rights were governed by contract); 5 (Minn. 1932) (noting that, while equitable relief was unavailable, the plaintiff could seek to recover a money judgment against the defendant); Southtown Plumbing, d at 140 (concluding that equitable relief was unavailable because a party failed to enforce a mechanic’s lien or pursued a breach-of-con
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Kingery v. Kingery, 185 Minn. 467, 470, 241 N.W.
In re the Estate of Irvin John Cooper, Sr., Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
It is well settled that “‘equity follows the law,’ and [appellate courts] may not ‘disregard statutory law or grant relief prohibited thereby.”’ ().
Craig Scherber & Associates, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Cloud, d at 305; (“[A] court of equity will not disregard statutory law or grant relief prohibited thereby.”); see also U.S. Fire Ins.
Terry L. Gates v. Michael L. Macken Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Terry L. Gates v. Michael L. Macken Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Equity follows the law,” Kingery v. Kingery, 185 Minn. 467, 470, 241 N.W.
In re the Matter of: Dakota County, Lorinda Elaine Floding, Below v. Darrell Ray Gillespie 866 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 2015
In re the Matter of: Dakota County, Lorinda Elaine Floding, Below v. Darrell Ray Gillespie 866 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 2015
*914 But “[e]quity follows the law,” and we may not “disregard statutory law or grant relief prohibited thereby.” Kingery v. Kingery, 185 Minn. 467, 470 , 241 N.W.
Superior Shores Lakehome Ass'n v. Jensen-Re Partners 792 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Superior Shores Lakehome Ass'n v. Jensen-Re Partners 792 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“ ‘[A] court of equity will not disregard statutory law or grant relief prohibited thereby.’ ” Wells Fargo Home Mortg., (quoting Kingery v. Kingery, 185 Minn. 467, 470 , 241 N.W.
Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc. 786 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 2010
Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc. 786 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 2010
Unlike Sucker, where we applied equitable subrogation when a party had paid taxes to protect his rights, in Kingery v. Kingery we declined to apply equitable subrogation because “[tjhere could be no belief on plaintiffs part that he would be subrogated to the two mortgages discharged so as to come ahead of the new first mortgage.” 185 Minn. 467, 471 , 241 N.W.
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. v. Chojnacki 668 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. v. Chojnacki 668 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
“[A] court of equity will not disregard statutory law or grant relief prohibited thereby.” Kingery v. Kingery, 185 Minn. 467, 470 , 241 N.W.
Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Norwest Bank, NA 529 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Norwest Bank, NA 529 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
see also Kingery v. Kingery, 185 Minn. 467, 470 , 241 N.W.
Southtown Plumbing, Inc. v. Har-Ned Lumber Co. 493 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Southtown Plumbing, Inc. v. Har-Ned Lumber Co. 493 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(if equitable relief were granted, statutory restrictions would be circumvented); Kingery v. Kingery, 185 Minn. 467, 470 , 241 N.W.
Zontelli & Sons, Inc. v. Fabyanske, Svoboda & Westra, P.A. 394 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Zontelli & Sons, Inc. v. Fabyanske, Svoboda & Westra, P.A. 394 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
This argument ignores that “equity follows law, and a court of equity will not disregard statutory law or grant relief prohibited thereby.” Kingery v. Kingery, 185 Minn. 467, 470 , 241 N.W.
Pelletier Corp. v. Chas. M. Freidheim Co. 383 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Pelletier Corp. v. Chas. M. Freidheim Co. 383 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kingery v. Kingery, 185 Minn. 467, 470 , 241 N.W.
Wright v. Wright 311 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1981
Wright v. Wright 311 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1981
467 (1927) and Kingery v. Kingery, 185 Minn. 467 , 241 N.W.
Hecht v. Anthony 283 N.W. 753 Minn. 1939
Hecht v. Anthony 283 N.W. 753 Minn. 1939
1927, § 8336, exempts homesteads from all liens (with exceptions not here material) “not lawfully charged thereon in writing.” Renville State Bank v. Lentz, 171 Minn. 431 , Kingery v. Kingery, 185 Minn. 467 , , are relied on for the proposition that neither an equitable lien nor a vendor’s lien may be decreed on a homestead.