Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Spiess v. Brandt, 41 N.W.2d 561.

49 citing documents.

Provision Media, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Sandra Weise v. Alan M. Powell Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Sandra Weise v. Alan M. Powell Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-66 (Minn. 1950) (explaining misrepresentation at the formation of a contract); Hoyt Props., Inc. v. Prod.
Hoyt Properties, Inc. v. Production Resource Group, L.L.C. 736 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 2007
Hoyt Properties, Inc. v. Production Resource Group, L.L.C. 736 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 2007
Spiess v. Brandt, 230 Minn. 246, 253
Hoyt Properties, Inc. v. Production Resource Group, L.L.C. 716 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Hoyt Properties, Inc. v. Production Resource Group, L.L.C. 716 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Spiess v. Brandt, 230 Minn. 246, 253 , (stating that “in a business transaction the recipient of a fraudulent misrepresentation ...
Faribo Oil Co. v. Tatge Oil Co., Inc. 501 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Faribo Oil Co. v. Tatge Oil Co., Inc. 501 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See e.g. Spiess v. Brandt, 230 Minn. 246, 250 , (elements necessary *702 for fraudulent misrepresentation include knowledge of falsity, intention to induce, and reliance); Bonhiver, 311 Minn. at 122 , d at 298-299 (elements necessary for negligent misrepresentation include reliance and lack of reasonable care).
ESTATE OF JONES BY BLUME v. Kvamme 430 N.W.2d 188 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
ESTATE OF JONES BY BLUME v. Kvamme 430 N.W.2d 188 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Spiess v. Brandt, 230 Minn. 246, 254
First National Bank of Shakopee v. Halo Investments 394 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
First National Bank of Shakopee v. Halo Investments 394 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Spiess v. Brandt, 230 Minn. 246, 250
Florenzano v. Olson 387 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 1986
Florenzano v. Olson 387 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 1986
Elsewhere we have stated, “A bad motive is not an essential element of fraud.” Spiess v. Brandt, 230 Minn. 246, 252 , (footnote omitted).
Berg v. Xerxes-Southdale Office Building Co. 290 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 1980
Berg v. Xerxes-Southdale Office Building Co. 290 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 1980
In Spiess v. Brandt, 230 Minn. 246 , however, this court recognized that predictions could be fraudulent if they failed to reflect past or present facts.
Murphy v. Country House, Inc. 240 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1976
Murphy v. Country House, Inc. 240 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1976
Spiess v. Brandt, 230 Minn. 246, 254
Consolidated Foods Corporation v. Pearson 178 N.W.2d 223 Minn. 1970
Consolidated Foods Corporation v. Pearson 178 N.W.2d 223 Minn. 1970
Corp. 276 Minn. 116 , 149 N. W. (2d) 37 ; Hollerman v. F. H. Peavey & Co. 269 Minn. 221 , 130 N. W. (2d) 534 ; Spiess v. Brandt, 230 Minn. 246 , 41 N. W. (2d) 561 ; Prosser, Torts (3 ed.) § 103.
City of Coon Rapids v. Suburban Engineering, Inc. 167 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1969
City of Coon Rapids v. Suburban Engineering, Inc. 167 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1969
Moreover, in Spiess v. Brandt, 230 Minn. 246, 253 , 41 N. W. (2d) 561, 566 , 27 A. L. R. (2d) 1, it was said: “* * * In fact, it is the well-established rule that in a business transaction the recipient of a fraudulent misrepresentation of a material fact is justified in relying upon its truth, although he might have ascertained its falsity had he made an invest
Proulx v. Hirsch Bros. Inc. 155 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1968
Proulx v. Hirsch Bros. Inc. 155 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1968
See, Wann v. Northwestern Trust Co. 120 Minn. 493 , ; Spiess v. Brandt, *163 230 Minn. 246 , 41 N. W. (2d) 561 , 27 A. L. R. (2d) 1; Swanson v. Domning, 251 Minn. 110 , 86 N. W. (2d) 716 .
Martin v. Guarantee Reserve Life Insurance Co. 155 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1968
Martin v. Guarantee Reserve Life Insurance Co. 155 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1968
In both a fair preponderance of the evidence justifies relief.” In Spiess v. Brandt, 230 Minn. 246, 257 , 41 N. W. (2d) 561, 569 , 27 A. L. R. (2d) 1, a case in which the plaintiffs sued to rescind a contract on the ground of fraud, the court held: “* * * The rule requiring clear and convincing evidence to justify a rescission of a contract for fraud is merely a rule of caution against setting aside written instrum
Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing Corporation 149 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1967
Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing Corporation 149 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1967
A false representation as to past or present income or profits is a false representation of a past or existing material fact within the meaning of the word “fraud,” Spiess v. Brandt, 230 Minn. 246 , 41 N. W. (2d) 561 , 27 A. L. R. (2d) 1, and would clearly be material to a person interested in selling the same product in the same territory.
Kennedy v. Flo-Tronics, Inc. 143 N.W.2d 827 Minn. 1966
Kennedy v. Flo-Tronics, Inc. 143 N.W.2d 827 Minn. 1966
5 Adan v. Steinbrecher, 116 Minn. 174 , ; Gable v. Niles Holding Co. 209 Minn. 445 , ; Spiess v. Brandt, 230 Minn. 246 , 41 N. W. (2d) 561 , 27 A. L. R. (2d) 1.
Liebsch v. Abbott 122 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 1963
Liebsch v. Abbott 122 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 1963
In Spiess v. Brandt, 230 Minn. 246, 255 , 41 N. W. (2d) 561, 567 , 27 A. L. R. (2d) 1, 10, we held: “* * * Where a decision is correct, it need not be sustained for the same reason or for all the reasons relied upon by the trial court.” If any finding by the trial court sustains the decision here, any error with respect to other findings is immaterial.
Slezak v. Ousdigian 110 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1961
Slezak v. Ousdigian 110 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1961
(3 ed.) § 421; Spiess v. Brandt, 230 Minn. 246 , 41 N. W. (2d) 561 , 27 A.L.R.
Gaertner v. Rees 107 N.W.2d 365 Minn. 1961
Gaertner v. Rees 107 N.W.2d 365 Minn. 1961
The plaintiffs cite three cases to support their position on this appeal, namely: Spiess v. Brandt, 230 Minn. 246 , 41 N. W. (2d) 561 , 27 A. L. R. (2d) 1; Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co. Inc. 246 Minn. 1 , 74 N. W. (2d) 305 ; Clark v. Thorpe Bros. 117 Minn. 202 , .
Hafner v. Ritzinger 97 N.W.2d 839 Minn. 1959
Hafner v. Ritzinger 97 N.W.2d 839 Minn. 1959
dge, knowing it to be false, or as of his own knowledge without knowing whether it is true or false, with intention to> induce the person to whom it is made to act in reliance upon it, or under such circumstances that such person is justified in acting in reliance upon it, and such person is thereby deceived and induced to act in reliance upon it, to his pecuniary damage.” In Spiess v. Brandt, 230 Minn. 246, 254 , 41 N. W. (2d) 561, 567 , 27 A. L. R. (2d) 1, 9, we said: “* * * where represent
Swanson v. Domning 86 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 1957
Swanson v. Domning 86 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 1957
1 See, also, Helvetia Copper Co. v. Hart-Parr Co. 137 Minn. 321 , ; Osborn v. Will, 183 Minn. 205 , ; Moulton v. Norton, 184 Minn. 343 , ; Gaetke v. The Ebarr Co. Inc. 195 Minn. 393 , ; Spiess v. Brandt, 230 Minn. 246 , 41 N. W. (2d) 561 , 27 A. L. R. (2d) 1; Dwinnell v. Oftedahl, 235 Minn. 383 , 51 N. W. (2d) 93 ; Restatement, Restitution, § 28.
Tompkins v. Sandeen 67 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 1954
Tompkins v. Sandeen 67 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 1954
5 Spiess v. Brandt, 230 Minn. 246 , 41 N. W. (2d) 561 , 27 A. L. R. (2d) 1; Lancoure v. Dupre, 53 Minn. 301 , ; Shermaster v. California Home Bldg.
Love v. Anderson 61 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1953
Love v. Anderson 61 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1953
9 Spiess v. Brandt, 230 Minn. 246 , 41 N. W. (2d) 561 , 27 A. L. R. (2d) 1; Gaetke v. Ebarr Co. Inc. 195 Minn. 393 , ; Wann v. Northwestern Trust Co. 120 Minn. 493 , ; Meland v. Youngberg, 124 Minn. 446 , ; Flaherty v. Till, 119 Minn. 191 , ; Brown v. Manning, 3 Minn. 13 (35); 8 Dunnell, Dig.
Marion v. Miller 55 N.W.2d 52 Minn. 1952
Marion v. Miller 55 N.W.2d 52 Minn. 1952
Spiess v. Brandt, 230 Minn. 246 , 41 N. W. (2d) 561 .
STATE EX. REL. SHOLES v. University of Minnesota 54 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 1952
STATE EX. REL. SHOLES v. University of Minnesota 54 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 1952
Corp. v. Kingery, 181 Minn. 477 , ; Bemboom v. National Surety Corp. 225 Minn. 163 , 31 N. W. (2d) 1 ; Spiess v. Brandt, 230 Minn. 246 , 41 N. W. (2d) 561 .