Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Mitchell v. Rende, 30 N.W.2d 27.

26 citing documents.

John Koppi, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
K&S Heating, Air Conditioning & Plumbing, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Mitchell v. Rende , 225 Minn. 145, 149
Brooksbank v. Anderson 586 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Brooksbank v. Anderson 586 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Mitchell v. Rende, 225 Minn. 145, 149 , (emphasis added) (citation omitted).
McNeill & Associates, Inc. v. ITT Life Insurance Corp. 446 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
McNeill & Associates, Inc. v. ITT Life Insurance Corp. 446 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Mitchell v. Rende, 225 Minn. 145, 148 , ()' Promissory Estoppel Theory The doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable when (1) a promise has been made; (2) the promisor should have reasonably expected the promise to induce action by t
Reliable Metal, Inc. v. Shakopee Valley Printing, Inc. 407 N.W.2d 684 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Reliable Metal, Inc. v. Shakopee Valley Printing, Inc. 407 N.W.2d 684 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Mitchell v. Rende, 225 Minn. 145, 148
Lucas v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 403 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1987
Lucas v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 403 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1987
New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Lundquist, 293 Minn. 274 , 288 n. 5, 198 * n. 5 (1972); Enga v. Felland, 264 Minn. 67, 70 , Mitchell v. Rande, 225 Minn. 145, 148
Wolpert v. Foster 254 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 1977
Wolpert v. Foster 254 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 1977
It is well settled that an agreement to modify a written contract may be found in conduct on the part of the offeree, e. g., Mitchell v. Rende, 225 Minn. 145 , and the trial court’s finding that an implied agreement to pay interest arose from defendant’s continued dealings with plaintiff is not clearly erroneous.
Asbestos Products, Inc. v. Healy Mechanical Contractors, Inc. 235 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1975
Asbestos Products, Inc. v. Healy Mechanical Contractors, Inc. 235 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1975
Mitchell v. Rende, 225 Minn. 145, 149 , 4 Dunnell, Dig.
New Amsterdam Casualty Company v. Lundquist 198 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 1972
New Amsterdam Casualty Company v. Lundquist 198 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 1972
Enga v. Felland, 264 Minn. 67, 70 , Mitchell v. Rende, 225 Minn. 145, 148 , 4 Dunnell, Dig.
Breza v. Thaldorf 149 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1967
Breza v. Thaldorf 149 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1967
he trial court in a memorandum made part of its order denying defendants’ motion for a judgment n. o. v. or for a new trial said: “I believe the jury was somewhat impressed by the fact the defendant, Lorene Thaldorf, did not corroborate many of the facts indicated by the defendant, Robert Thaldorf, [which] Were within her knowledge and which were favorable to the defendants.” 2 Mitchell v. Rende, 225 Minn. 145 , 30 N. W. (2d) 27 .
Enga v. Felland 117 N.W.2d 787 Minn. 1962
Enga v. Felland 117 N.W.2d 787 Minn. 1962
4 Elliott v. Robbins, 110 Minn. 481 , ; Mitchell v. Rende, 225 Minn. 145 , 30 N. W. (2d) 27 ; 4 Dunnell, Dig.
Olson v. Penkert 90 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 1958
Olson v. Penkert 90 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 1958
rt has consistently held beginning with Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531, 540 , , that “Parties can alter their contract by mutual consent, and this requires no new consideration, for it is merely the substitution of a new contract for the old one, and this is of itself a sufficient consideration for the new.” *348 Rye v. Phillips, 203 Minn. 567 , ; Mitchell v. Rende, 225 Minn. 145 , 30 N. W. (2d) 27 .
Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin 65 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1954
Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin 65 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1954
Raymond v. McKenzie, 220 Minn. 234 , 19 N. W. (2d) 423 ; Mitchell v. Rende, 225 Minn. 145 , 30 N. W. (2d) 27 ; Associated Cinemas v. World Amusement Co. 201 Minn. 94 , ; Close v. Crossland, 47 Minn. 500 , ; Reliance Engineers Co. v. Flaherty, 211 Minn. 233 , ; Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491 , ; First Nat.
Knaus Truck Lines, Inc. v. Donaldson 51 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1952
Knaus Truck Lines, Inc. v. Donaldson 51 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1952
*458 “A. That is right.” Mitchell v. Rende, 225 Minn. 145 , 30 N. W. (2d) 27 , cited by plaintiffs, is not in point because in that case there was either a modification or the old agreement remained in effect.