Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Larson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. Inc., 32 N.W.2d 649.

33 citing documents.

Alex Sajady, et al., Appellants, vs. Tracy Sajady, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Alex Sajady, et al., Appellants, vs. Tracy Sajady, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Co., (emphasis added) (quotations, brackets, and citations omitted); see also DLH
Dale LeRoy Tiede v. County of Le Sueur, Daniel J. Sullivan, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Dale LeRoy Tiede v. County of Le Sueur, Daniel J. Sullivan, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
nversion is “an act of willful interference with the personal property of another which is without justification or which is inconsistent with the rights 21 of the person entitled to the use, possession or ownership of the property.” ().
Minn. 2022
While we have recognized that the terms of an oral contract might be “more difficult to prove” than a written agreement, we have never imposed a higher standard of proof for oral agreements generally.
TCI Business Capital, Inc. v. Five Star American Die Casting, LLC, Brian T. Flynn 890 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
TCI Business Capital, Inc. v. Five Star American Die Casting, LLC, Brian T. Flynn 890 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The supreme court has defined the tort of conversion as “an act of willful interference with [the personal property of another], done without lawful justification, by which any person entitled thereto is deprived of use and possession,” Larson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 226 Minn. 315, 317 , and “the exercise of dominion and control over goods inconsistent with, and in repudiation of, the owner’s rights in those goods.” accord Hildegarde, Inc. v. Wright, 244 Minn. 410, 413
David B. Markle v. Metro Metals Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
David B. Markle v. Metro Metals Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Good faith is not a defense to a claim of conversion.” Id.; see also Larson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 226 Minn. 315, 317, (“As a general rule, the intent, knowledge, or motive of the converter is immaterial except as affecting damages.”); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 244 (1965) (“An actor is not relieved of liability to another for .
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
But a “plaintiffs lack of an enforceable interest in the subject property is a complete defense against conversion.” review denied (Minn. June 29, 1994); see also Larson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 226 Minn. 315, 317
Christensen v. Milbank Insurance Co. 658 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 2003
Christensen v. Milbank Insurance Co. 658 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 2003
We did not define “conversion.” In other contexts, we have defined “conversion” as “an act of willful interference with [the personal property of another], done, without lawful justification, by which any person entitled thereto is deprived of use and possession,” Larson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 226 Minn. 315, 317 , and “the exercise of dominion and control over goods inconsistent with, and in repudiation of, the owner’s rights in those goods.” accord Hildegarde, Inc. v. Wright, 244 Minn.
Christensen v. Milbank Insurance Co. 643 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Christensen v. Milbank Insurance Co. 643 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Under Minnesota law, conversion is defined as “an act of willful interference with the personal property of another which is without justification or which is inconsistent with the rights of the person entitled to the use, possession or ownership of the property.” (emphasis added) (citing Larson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 226 Minn. 315, 317 , ); (“Conversion is an intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it
DLH, Inc. v. Russ 566 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1997
DLH, Inc. v. Russ 566 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1997
It is defined as an act of willful interference with personal property, “done without lawful justification by which any person entitled thereto is deprived of use and possession.” Larson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 226 Minn. 315, 317 , see also Humphreys v. Minnesota Clay Co., 94 Minn. 469, 471-72 , 103 N.W.
Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency 551 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency 551 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
“Conversion has been defined as an act of wilful interference with a chattel, done without lawful justification, by which any person entitled thereto is deprived of use and possession.” Larson v. Archer Daniels-Midland Co., 226 Minn. 315, 317
Lassen v. First Bank Eden Prairie 514 N.W.2d 831 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Lassen v. First Bank Eden Prairie 514 N.W.2d 831 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Larson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 226 Minn. 315, 317 , Mertes v. Estate of E.L.
Mertes v. Estate of King 501 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Mertes v. Estate of King 501 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Cf. Larson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 226 Minn. 315, 317 , (essential elements of conversion are that plaintiff possess property interest and that defendant deprive plaintiff of that interest).
General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin v. Mid-Continent Agencies, Inc. 485 N.W.2d 147 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin v. Mid-Continent Agencies, Inc. 485 N.W.2d 147 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(citing Larson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 226 Minn. 315, 317 , ).
Dairy Farm Leasing Co. v. Haas Livestock Selling Agency, Inc. 458 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Dairy Farm Leasing Co. v. Haas Livestock Selling Agency, Inc. 458 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
II Conversion is “an act of willful interference with the personal property of another which is without justification or which is inconsistent with the rights of the person entitled to the use, possession or ownership of the property.” Dain Bosworth, (citing Larson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., Inc., 226 Minn. 315, 317 , ).
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
Larson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 226 Minn. 315, 316
State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Porter Farms, Inc. 382 N.W.2d 543 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Porter Farms, Inc. 382 N.W.2d 543 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The question of the construction of the relationship created by a contract to farm on shares was discussed in Larson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 226 Minn. 315 , : The general rule is that the question whether the relation of the parties is that of landlord and tenant, landowner and cropper, participants in a common venture, or some other relationship must turn upon the actual intention of the parties as gathered from the entire contract, the language in
Dain Bosworth Inc. v. Goetze 374 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Dain Bosworth Inc. v. Goetze 374 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Larson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., Inc., 226 Minn. 315, 317