DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Prince v. Sonnesyn, 25 N.W.2d 468.

35 citing documents.

  • Ben Tahja, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    See Prince v. Sonnesyn , 12 -74 (Minn. 1946) (affirming district court order setting aside formation of corporation on equitable grounds).
  • Andrew Brewer, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Prince v. Sonnesyn , d 468, 473 ( Minn. 1946) (“[I]n equity the kinds and forms of specific remedies are as unlimited as the powers of such courts to shape relief awarded in accordance with the circumstances of the particular case.”).
  • Joy Folie v. Aging Joyfully, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Joy Folie v. Aging Joyfully, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    The common law has also described this duty, reasoning that because the relationship among shareholders in closely held corporations is analogous to that of partners, “the law imposes upon them highest standards of integrity and good faith in their dealings with each other.” Prince v. Sonnesyn, 222 Minn. 523, 535, (quotation omitted); see also Westland 11 Capitol Corp. v. Lucht.
  • David P. Cook v. Wendi C. Wicktor-Heinks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • David P. Cook v. Wendi C. Wicktor-Heinks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    “In equity the kinds and 4 forms of specific remedies are as unlimited as the powers of such courts to shape relief awarded in accordance with the circumstances of the particular case.” Prince v. Sonnesyn, 222 Minn. 528, 538
  • Premier Bank v. Becker Development, LLC 767 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • Premier Bank v. Becker Development, LLC 767 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    See Prince v. Sonnesyn, 222 Minn. 528, 538 , (stating the kinds and forms of specific remedies are as unlimited as the powers of courts to shape relief in accordance with the specific circumstances of the case).
  • Swenson v. Bender 764 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • Swenson v. Bender 764 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    v. Brown, see also Prince v. Sonnesyn, 222 Minn. 528, 535 , (describing partners’ duties as fiduciaries).
  • Maus v. Galic 669 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • Maus v. Galic 669 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    Prince v. Sonnesyn, 222 Minn. 528, 588 , (quotation omitted).
  • Hurwitz v. Padden 581 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • Hurwitz v. Padden 581 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    Prince v. Sonnesyn, 222 Minn. 528, 535
  • Soucek v. Banham 503 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • Appletree Square I Ltd. Partnership v. Investmark, Inc. 494 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • Appletree Square I Ltd. Partnership v. Investmark, Inc. 494 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    at 413, n. 10 , Prince v. Sonnesyn, 222 Minn. 528, 535 , Kitzman v. Postier & Kruger Co., Inc., 204 Minn. 343, 346 , 283 N.W.
  • Pedro v. Pedro 489 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • Pedro v. Pedro 489 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    In a fiduciary relationship “the law imposes upon them highest standards of integrity and good faith in their dealings with each other.” Prince v. Sonnesyn, 222 Minn. 528, 535 , (citation omitted).
  • Rodeberg v. Weckwerth 409 N.W.2d 57 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Rodeberg v. Weckwerth 409 N.W.2d 57 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    The forms of equitable remedies are “unlimited as the powers of such courts to shape relief awarded in accordance with the circumstances of the particular case.” Prince v. Sonnesyn, 222 Minn. 528, 538
  • Evans v. Blesi 345 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Evans v. Blesi 345 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Fewell v. Tappan, 223 Minn. 483 , Prince v. Sonnesyn, 222 Minn. 528
  • G. C. Kohlmier, Inc. v. Albin 101 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1960
  • G. C. Kohlmier, Inc. v. Albin 101 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1960
    Co. 244 Minn. 192 , 69 N. W. (2d) 660 ; Prince v. Sonnesyn, 222 Minn. 528 , 25 N. W. (2d) 468 ; Nielsen v. City of St.
  • Antell v. PEARL ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 89 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 1958
  • Antell v. PEARL ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 89 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 1958
    Co. 244 Minn. 192 , 69 N. W. (2d) 660 ; Prince v. Sonnesyn, 222 Minn. 528 , 25 N. W. (2d) 468 ; Bicanic v. J. C. Campbell Co. 220 Minn. 107 , 19 N. W. (2d) 7 ; Bang v. International Sisal Co. 212 Minn. 135 , 4 N. W. (2d) 113 , 141 A. L. R. 657; 1 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Nielsen v. City of St. Paul 88 N.W.2d 853 Minn. 1958
  • Nielsen v. City of St. Paul 88 N.W.2d 853 Minn. 1958
    Co. 244 Minn. 192 , 69 N. W. (2d) 660 ; Prince v. Sonnesyn, 222 Minn. 528 , 25 N. W. (2d) 468 ; Bicanic v. J. C. *30 Campbell Co. 220 Minn. 107 , 19 N. W. (2d) 7 ; Bang v. International Sisal Co. 212 Minn. 135 , 4 N. W. (2d) 113 , 141 A. L. R. 657; 1 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Dempsey v. Meighen 90 N.W.2d 178 Minn. 1958
  • Dempsey v. Meighen 90 N.W.2d 178 Minn. 1958
    Paul, 240 Minn. 522 , 62 N. W. (2d) 363 ; Reiter v. Western State Bank, 240 Minn. 484 , 62 N. W. (2d) 344 , 42 A. L. R. (2d) 1064; Prince v. Sonnesyn, 222 Minn. 528 , 25 N. W. (2d) 468 ; Cohen v. Steinke, 223 *573 Minn. 292, 26 N. W. (2d) 843 ; Sullivan v. Brown, 225 Minn. 524 , 31 N. W. (2d) 439 ; Kelly v. Kelly, 243 Minn. 114 , 66 N. W. (2d) 606 .
  • Fewell v. Tappan 27 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1947
  • Fewell v. Tappan 27 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1947
    We refer to Prince v. Sonnesyn, 222 Minn. 528 , 25 N. W. (2d) 468 , and Venier v. Forbes, 223 Minn. 69 , 25 N. W. (2d) 704 .
  • Venier v. Forbes 25 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 1946
  • Venier v. Forbes 25 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 1946
    In our latest case on this phase, Prince v. Sonnesyn, 222 Minn. 528 , 25 N. W. (2d) 468 , we had for consideration a fact situation involving issues practically identical with those presented here.