Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Albachten v. Bradley, 3 N.W.2d 783.

26 citing documents.

SINGELMAN v. St. Francis Medical Center 777 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
SINGELMAN v. St. Francis Medical Center 777 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Albachten v. Bradley, 212 Minn. 359, 364-65
Stottler v. Meyers Printing Company 602 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Stottler v. Meyers Printing Company 602 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
1 (insurer who induced homeowner to refrain from suing on representation that investigation might lead to settlement, estopped from asserting statute of limitations defense); Albachten v. Bradley, 212 Minn. 359, 369-70 , (oral agreement to wait until after expiration of limitation period estops party from using statute of limitations as defense).
In Re Estate of Fauskee 497 N.W.2d 324 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In Re Estate of Fauskee 497 N.W.2d 324 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Albachten v. Bradley, 212 Minn. 359 , (oral acknowledgment before cause of action was barred estopped debtor from raising a statute of frauds defense).
Schneider v. Buckman 412 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Schneider v. Buckman 412 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Albachten v. Bradley, 212 Minn. 359, 362-63
Bethesda Lutheran Church v. Twin City Construction Co. 356 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Bethesda Lutheran Church v. Twin City Construction Co. 356 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Bethesda relies upon Albachten v. Bradley, 212 Minn. 359 , to argue Twin City’s promises to cure the roof leaks satisfy the inducement element.
Sohns v. Pederson 354 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Sohns v. Pederson 354 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Albachten v. Bradley, 212 Minn. 359
Short v. Sun Newspapers, Inc. 300 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1980
Short v. Sun Newspapers, Inc. 300 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1980
Restatement of Contracts § 484 (1932); accord, Albachten v. Bradley, 212 Minn. 359
Del Hayes & Sons, Inc. v. Mitchell 230 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 1975
Del Hayes & Sons, Inc. v. Mitchell 230 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 1975
12 Albachten v. Bradley, 212 Minn. 359 , relied on by defendants, does not compel a contrary result.
Constructors Supply Co. v. Bostrom Sheet Metal Works, Inc. 190 N.W.2d 71 Minn. 1971
Constructors Supply Co. v. Bostrom Sheet Metal Works, Inc. 190 N.W.2d 71 Minn. 1971
It was also recognized and applied in Albachten v. Bradley, 212 Minn. 359 , 3 N. W. (2d) 783 , in which we held a debtor estopped to plead the statute of limitations where, by promising that he would later make a new arrangement or settle the plaintiff’s claim, he induced plaintiff to forbear suit until after the statute had run.
Formanek v. Langton 134 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 1965
Formanek v. Langton 134 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 1965
Likewise, it has been held that estoppel may preclude a party to an agreement from asserting the lack of a writing required by statute., Albachten v. Bradley, 212 Minn. 359 , 3 N. W. (2d) 783 .
State v. Hart Motor Express, Inc. 132 N.W.2d 391 Minn. 1964
State v. Hart Motor Express, Inc. 132 N.W.2d 391 Minn. 1964
111 , 53 N. Y. S. (2d) 179; and further, under circumstances such as those described here, that a defendant’s conduct may estop it from asserting such a defense, Albachten v. Bradley, 212 Minn. 359 , 3 N. W. (2d) 783 .
Bustad v. Bustad 116 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1962
Bustad v. Bustad 116 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1962
*243 Plaintiff, relying on the doctrine of promissory estoppel, cites as authority for tolling the statute of limitations Albachten v. Bradley, 212 Minn. 359 , 3 N. W. (2d) 783 .
Schueller v. Knapp 107 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 1961
Schueller v. Knapp 107 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 1961
t in writing, and plaintiff therefore encounters § 541.17, which provides that such new agreement must be “contained in some writing signed by the party to be charged thereby.” Plaintiff, in an attempt to avoid the provisions of the statute, contends that, under the facts here, defendants are estopped to set up the statute of limitations as a defense, citing as his authority Albachten v. Bradley, 212 Minn. 359 , 3 N. W. (2d) 783 .