DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Dunn v. Midland Loan Finance Corp., 289 N.W. 411.

25 citing documents.

  • Pamela Maslowski, Minn. 2023
  • Widmark v. Northrup King Co. 530 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • Widmark v. Northrup King Co. 530 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    Corp., 206 Minn. 550 , 289 N.W.
  • Miller v. Colortyme, Inc. 504 N.W.2d 258 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • Miller v. Colortyme, Inc. 504 N.W.2d 258 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    Grant Co., 300 Minn. 223, 231 , (quoting Dunn v. Midland Loan Finance Corp., 206 Minn. 550, 553 , 289 N.W.
  • St. Paul Bank for Cooperatives v. Ohman 402 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • St. Paul Bank for Cooperatives v. Ohman 402 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Dunn v. Midland Loan Finance Corp., 206 Minn. 550 , 289 N.W.
  • Jurek v. Thompson 241 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 1976
  • Jurek v. Thompson 241 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 1976
    of Taxation, 284 Minn. 185 , Derrick v. The Drolson Co. Inc. 244 Minn. 144 , Dunn v. Loan Midland Finance Corp. 206 Minn. 550 , Lee v. Peoples Co-op.
  • Rathbun v. WT Grant Company 219 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1974
  • Rathbun v. WT Grant Company 219 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1974
    In addition to the statutory exceptions, Minnesota cases starting with Dunn v. Midland Loan Finance Corp. 206 Minn. 550 , have developed a body of law holding that a bona fide installment sale does not come within the purview of the usury statute.
  • Schauman v. Solmica Midwest, Inc. 168 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1969
  • Schauman v. Solmica Midwest, Inc. 168 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1969
    This court in Dunn v. Midland Loan Finance Corp. 206 Minn. 550 , , 24 Minn. L. Rev. 602 , said that the power to determine the extent of the increase of the credit price over the cash selling price is incident to the owner’s right to fix the latter and is a matter of contract between the parties.
  • WALTER E. HELLER AND COMPANY v. Warner 163 N.W.2d 573 Minn. 1968
  • WALTER E. HELLER AND COMPANY v. Warner 163 N.W.2d 573 Minn. 1968
    *177 Dunn v. Midland Loan Finance Corp. 206 Minn. 550 , , held that for a sale of personal property to constitute a loan or forbearance of money, it must be a mere form or device to evade the usury law; and that an owner of property is entitled to set a different price for a credit sale from that set for a cash sale.
  • Melbo v. Rinn 157 N.W.2d 842 Minn. 1968
  • Melbo v. Rinn 157 N.W.2d 842 Minn. 1968
    If upon a new trial it appears that the sales to Rinn and Shank reflected a bona fide time price differential, and there was in fact one price for cash and another for credit, under our decisions in Dunn v. Midland Loan Finance Corp. 206 Minn. 550 , , and Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc. 254 Minn. 62 , 93 N. W. (2d) 690 , the sales were not usurious.
  • Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc. 93 N.W.2d 690 Minn. 1958
  • Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc. 93 N.W.2d 690 Minn. 1958
    See, Dunn v. Midland Loan Finance Corp. 206 Minn. 550 , ; In re Bibbey (D. Minn.) 9 F. (2d) 944; Hogg v. Ruffner, 66 U. S. (1 Black) 115 , 17 L. ed. 38.
  • Midland Loan Finance Co. v. Madsen 14 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1944
  • Midland Loan Finance Co. v. Madsen 14 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1944
    See Dunn v. Midland Loan Finance Corp. 206 Minn. 550 , pp. 552 and 555, .
  • Seebold v. Eustermann 13 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1944
  • Seebold v. Eustermann 13 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1944
    There are three essential elements entering into and furnishing the tests of whether there is usury in a given case, vis:.: there must be (1) a loan or forbearance of money, Dunn v. Midland Loan Finance Corp. 206 Minn. 550, 553 , ; (2) an agreement for a return of the money at all events; and (3) an agreement to pay more than the legal rate of interest for its use, 6 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Midland Loan Finance Co. v. Lorentz 296 N.W. 911 Minn. 1941
  • Midland Loan Finance Co. v. Lorentz 296 N.W. 911 Minn. 1941
    Dunn v. Midland Loan Finance Corp. 206 Minn. 550 , 553 , 289 N.W.