Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Estrada v. Hanson, 10 N.W.2d 223.

33 citing documents.

Dynamic Energy Solutions, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
157, 158 (Minn. 1931); ).
Producers Livestock Credit Corporation, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Estrada v. Hanson , (“A 10 valuable consideration may consist of some benefit accruing to one party or some detriment suffered by the other .
Anand Kannan, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A valuable consideration may consist of some benefit accruing to one party or some detriment suffered by the other, and the tendency is to emphasize the detriment to the promisee.” Estrada v. Hanson, 215 Minn. 353, 355
Kremer v. Kremer 912 N.W.2d 617 Minn. 2018
Kremer v. Kremer 912 N.W.2d 617 Minn. 2018
Estrada v. Hanson , 215 Minn. 353 , , 225 (1943).
Thomas B. Olson & Associates, P.A. v. Leffert, Jay & Polglaze, P.A. 756 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Thomas B. Olson & Associates, P.A. v. Leffert, Jay & Polglaze, P.A. 756 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Estrada v. Hanson, 215 Minn. 353, 356 , -26 (1943).
Van Kampen v. Waseca Mutual Insurance Co. 754 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Van Kampen v. Waseca Mutual Insurance Co. 754 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In fact, “[e]onsideration may consist of some benefit accruing to one party or some detriment suffered by the other.” See Estrada v. Hanson, 215 Minn. 353, 355 , (defining consideration).
Marriage of Kielley v. Kielley 674 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Marriage of Kielley v. Kielley 674 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Estrada v. Hanson, 215 Minn. 353, 356 , -26 (1943).
Brooksbank v. Anderson 586 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Brooksbank v. Anderson 586 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
“Minnesota follows the long-standing contract principle that a court will not examine the adequacy of consideration as long as something of value has passed between the parties.” C & D (citing Estrada v. Hanson, 215 Minn. 353, 356 , -26 (1943)), review denied (Minn. June 14, 1985).
Chalmers v. Kanawyer 544 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Chalmers v. Kanawyer 544 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
24, 1987) (citing Estrada v. Hanson, 215 Minn. 353, 356 , -26 (1943)).
Cooke v. Belzer 413 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Cooke v. Belzer 413 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Estrada v. Hanson, 215 Minn. 353, 355
Gunhus, Grinnell v. Engelstad 413 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Gunhus, Grinnell v. Engelstad 413 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Estrada v. Hanson, 215 Minn. 353, 356 , -26 (1943).
Park-Lake Car Wash, Inc. v. Springer 394 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Park-Lake Car Wash, Inc. v. Springer 394 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Estrada v. Hanson, 215 Minn. 353, 355
C & D INVESTMENTS v. Beaudoin 364 N.W.2d 850 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
C & D INVESTMENTS v. Beaudoin 364 N.W.2d 850 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Estrada v. Hanson, 215 Minn. 353, 355
Pine River State Bank v. Mettille 333 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 1983
Pine River State Bank v. Mettille 333 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 1983
See Estrada v. Hanson, 215 Minn. 353
Blackduck State Bank v. Wickham 158 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1968
Blackduck State Bank v. Wickham 158 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1968
Oil Co. v. Lee, 239 Minn. 148, 151 , 58 N. W. (2d) 247, 249 , this court held: “The rule is well settled that in a civil action where the appellant makes no assignments of error in this court no question is presented to it for review; but notwithstanding the rule, if respondent voluntarily joins in arguing a question argued by appellant, this court will consider it.” See, also, Estrada v. Hanson, 215 Minn. 353 , 10 N. W. (2d) 223 ; Erickson v. Mathwig, 226 Minn. 55 , 31 N. W. (2d) 918 ; Kuhlmann
Cordell v. Chanhassen Auto Body 130 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1964
Cordell v. Chanhassen Auto Body 130 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1964
Estrada v. Hanson, 215 Minn. 353 , 10 N. W. (2d) 223 ; 1 Dunnell, Dig.
Suske v. Straka 39 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1949
Suske v. Straka 39 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1949
The consideration for a promise, whether it be some benefit accruing to one party or some detriment suffered by the other (see, Estrada v. Hanson, 215 Minn. 353 , 10 N. W. [2d] 223), or something else (see, 2 Dunnell, Supp. § 1750), must be something which both parties to the contract have adopted and regarded as such.
Erickson v. Sinykin 26 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1947
Erickson v. Sinykin 26 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1947
And also, as said in Estrada v. Hanson, 215 Minn. 353, 356 , 10 N. W. (2d) 223 , 226: “* * * There is no particular assignment of error.