Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hart v. Bell, 23 N.W.2d 375.

40 citing documents.

Isles Wellness, Inc. v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co. 725 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 2006
Isles Wellness, Inc. v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co. 725 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 2006
Hart v. Bell, 222 Minn. 69, 75 , see also Dick Weatherston’s Assoc.
Watson v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 566 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 1997
Watson v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 566 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 1997
(emphasis in original); see also Hart v. Bell, 222 Minn. 69, 75 , -79 (1946) (holding that a court has a duty to consider the issue of a contract’s illegality for the first time on appeal if the illegality is apparent from undisputed facts, if the illegality is in clear contravention of public pohcy, *688 and if a decision thereon will be decisive of the enti
PJ Acquisition Corp. v. Skoglund 453 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1990
PJ Acquisition Corp. v. Skoglund 453 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1990
Hart v. Bell, 222 Minn. 69, 82
Johnson v. Jensen 446 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1989
Johnson v. Jensen 446 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1989
E.g., Hart v. Bell, 222 Minn. 69, 74
United Steelworkers, Local 6115 v. Quadna Mountain Corp. 435 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
United Steelworkers, Local 6115 v. Quadna Mountain Corp. 435 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Hart v. Bell, 222 Minn. 69, 76
Westland Capitol Corp. v. Lucht Engineering Inc. 308 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1981
Westland Capitol Corp. v. Lucht Engineering Inc. 308 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1981
In Hart v. Bell, 222 Minn. 69 , a voting trust was challenged as void for public policy reasons by a group of shareholders in a close corporation.
Miller v. Miller 222 N.W.2d 71 Minn. 1974
A. C. Petters Co. v. St. Cloud Enterprises, Inc. 222 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1974
Miller v. Miller 222 N.W.2d 71 Minn. 1974
Hart v. Bell, 222 Minn. 69 , , Boxrud v. Ronning Machinery Co. 217 Minn. 518 , Diedrick v. Helm, supra.
A. C. Petters Co. v. St. Cloud Enterprises, Inc. 222 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1974
1 Hart v. Bell, 222 Minn. 69
Nutter v. Bechtel 433 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Butler v. Hatfield 152 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1967
Butler v. Hatfield 152 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1967
See, Hart v. Bell, 222 Minn. 69 , 23 N. W. (2d) 375 , 24 N. W. (2d) 41 ; Investors Syndicate v. Baskerville Brothers Holding Co. 200 Minn. 461 , .
Indianhead Truck Line, Inc. v. Hvidsten Transport, Inc. 128 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 1964
Indianhead Truck Line, Inc. v. Hvidsten Transport, Inc. 128 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 1964
See, North Dakota Century Code, § 9-07-08; Hart v. Bell, 222 Minn. 69 , 23 N. W. (2d) 375 , 24 N. W. (2d) 41 ; Investors Syndicate v. Baskerville Brothers Holding Co. 200 Minn. 461 , .
Fingerhut Manufacturing Co. v. MacK Trucks, Inc. 125 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1964
Fingerhut Manufacturing Co. v. MacK Trucks, Inc. 125 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1964
See, also, Hart v. Bell, 222 Minn. 69 , 23 N. W. (2d) 375 , 24 N. W. (2d) 41 .
Annis v. Annis 84 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1957
Annis v. Annis 84 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1957
9 Skolnick v. Gruesner, 196 Minn. 318 , ; Hart v. Bell, 222 Minn. 69 , 23 N. W. (2d) 375 , 24 N. W. (2d) 41 ; American Surety Co. v. Greenwald, 223 Minn. 37 , 25 N. W. (2d) 681 ; Miller v. Minneapolis Underwriters Assn. Inc. 226 Minn. 367 , 33 N. W. (2d) 48 ; 1 Dunnell, Dig.
State v. Adams 89 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1957
Holen v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission 84 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 1957
Holen v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission 84 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 1957
As to cases involving both the legality and contravention of public policy upon undisputed facts, see Hart v. Bell, 222 Minn. 69 , 23 N. W. (2d) 375 , 24 N. W. (2d) 41 ; Ray v. Homewood Hospital, Inc. 223 Minn. 440 , 27 N. W. (2d) 409 .
Pangalos v. Halpern 76 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1956
Pangalos v. Halpern 76 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1956
See, Hart v. Bell, 222 Minn. 69, 82, 83 , 23 N. W. (2d) 375 , 24 N. W. (2d) 41 .
Cooney v. Greenwalt 51 N.W.2d 285 Minn. 1952
Cooney v. Greenwalt 51 N.W.2d 285 Minn. 1952
The only exception to this rule — and it has no application here — is stated in Hart v. Bell, 222 Minn. 69 , 23 N. W. (2d) 375 , 24 N. W. (2d) 41 .
Lovrenchich v. Collins 46 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 1951
Lovrenchich v. Collins 46 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 1951
2 See, Hart v. Bell, 222 Minn. 69 , 23 N. W. (2d) 375 , 24 N. W. (2d) 41 ; Ray v. Homewood Hospital, Inc. 223 Minn. 440 , 27 N. W. (2d) 409 .
Atwood v. Holmes 38 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1949
Atwood v. Holmes 38 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1949
ay, consider and determine a case upon the ground of illegality, although such ground was neither presented to nor considered by the trial court, if such illegality (a) is apparent upon undisputed facts, (b) is in clear contravention of public policy, and (c) if a decision thereon will be decisive of the controversy on its merits, Skolnick v. Gruesner, 196 Minn. 318 , ; Hart v. Bell, 222 Minn. 69 , 23 N. W. (2d) 375 , 24 N. W. (2d) 41 .
Holden v. Farwell, Ozmun, Kirk & Co. 27 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1947
Holden v. Farwell, Ozmun, Kirk & Co. 27 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1947
See, Hart v. Bell, 222 Minn. 69 , 23 N. W. (2d) 375 , 24 N W. (2d) 41.
Ray v. Homewood Hospital, Inc. 27 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1947
Ray v. Homewood Hospital, Inc. 27 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1947
As an exception to the general rule that this court will not for the first time on appeal consider a theory that was not litigated below, we held in Hart v. Bell, 222 Minn. 69, 74 , 23 N. W. (2d) 375, 378 , that: “* * * this court has a duty to, and upon its own motion may, consider and determine a case upon the ground of illegality, although such ground was neither presented to nor considered by the trial court, if such illegality (a) is apparent upon undisputed facts, (b) is in clear cont