DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Knox v. Knox, 25 N.W.2d 225.

73 citing documents.

  • Brennan v. Carroll 111 N.W.2d 229 Minn. 1961
  • Marquette Appliances, Inc. v. Economy Food Plan, Inc. 97 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1959
  • Marquette Appliances, Inc. v. Economy Food Plan, Inc. 97 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1959
    1 For the elements of a constructive trust as an equitable remedy for rectifying an unjust enrichment, see Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477 , 25 N. W. (2d) 225 .
  • Gethsemane Lutheran Church v. Zacho 92 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1958
  • Gethsemane Lutheran Church v. Zacho 92 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1958
    In Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477 , 25 N. W. (2d) 225 , we held that § 501.07 has no application to a constructive trust.
  • Borsgard v. Elverum 80 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1957
  • Borsgard v. Elverum 80 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1957
    The true nature of a constructive trust is adequately set forth in Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477, 481 , 25 N. W. (2d) 225, 228 , where we said: “* * * It [a constructive trust] is an unjust-enrichment, rectifying remedy and has nothing in common with an express trust except a confusing similarity in surname or label.
  • Minnesota Odd Fellows Home v. Pogue 73 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1955
  • Minnesota Odd Fellows Home v. Pogue 73 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1955
    The evidence reasonably sustains the findings of the court and these findings, in the light of the principles set forth in Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477 , 25 N. W. (2d) 225 , fully support the court’s conclusions of law that defendant-executrix holds the property as a constructive trustee.
  • Dietz v. Dietz 70 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1955
  • Dietz v. Dietz 70 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1955
    13 M. S. A. 501.06; Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477, 484 , 25 N. W. (2d) 225 , 229 to 230.
  • Petersen v. Swan 57 N.W.2d 842 Minn. 1953
  • Petersen v. Swan 57 N.W.2d 842 Minn. 1953
    Cisewski v. Cisewski, 129 Minn. 284 , ; Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477 , 25 N. W. (2d) 225 ; 3 Scott, Trusts, § 514.1.
  • Hafner v. Hafner 54 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1952
  • Hafner v. Hafner 54 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1952
    Martin v. Tucker, 217 Minn. 104, 106 , 14 N. W. (2d) 105, 106 ; Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477, 483 , 25 N. W. (2d) 225, 229 ; 26 Am.
  • Georgopolis v. George 54 N.W.2d 137 Minn. 1952
  • Georgopolis v. George 54 N.W.2d 137 Minn. 1952
    3 For a discussion of the general rule, see Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477 , 25 N. W. (2d) 225 .
  • Bastian v. Brink 45 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1951
  • Bastian v. Brink 45 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1951
    Thus, at times this court has given relief to a purchaser of land as against an unconscionable grantee holding title in abuse of a confidential relationship or specific instructions by imposing a constructive trust upon the property (Sieger v. Sieger, 162 Minn. 322 , , 42 A. L. R. 1; Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477, 484 , 25 N. W. [2d] 225, 229-230; see, Luse v. Reed, 63 Minn. 5 , ); by specifically enforcing a partially performed parol trust agreement (Wentworth v. Wentworth, 2 Minn. 238 [277] [but
  • Alstad v. Boyer 37 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1949
  • Alstad v. Boyer 37 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1949
    3 See, Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477, 481-482, 487-488 , 25 N. W. (2d) 225, 228-229, 231-232 .
  • Prince v. Sonnesyn 25 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1946
  • Prince v. Sonnesyn 25 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1946
    See, Johns v. McGenty, 222 Minn. 84 , 23 N. W. (2d) 289 , and Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477 , 25 N. W. (2d) 225 , where we stated the general rule as to waiver of fraud by unreasonable delay in rescinding a contract after learning of deception.