Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hildegarde, Inc. v. Wright, 70 N.W.2d 257.

32 citing documents.

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
awful 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
Faegre & Benson, LLP v. R & R INVESTORS 772 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Faegre & Benson, LLP v. R & R INVESTORS 772 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-20 (Minn.App.1999) (defining conversion as “an act of willful interference with the personal property of another that is without justification or that is inconsistent with the rights of the person entitled to the use, possession, or ownership of the property” (emphasis added)); cf. Hildegarde, Inc. v. Wright, 244 Minn. 410, 413 , (holding that bailee could, without being liable for conversion, require proof of right to title or possession before delivering goods demanded).
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
Conversion is “an act of willful interference with personal property, done without lawful justification by which any person entitled thereto is deprived of use and possession.” DLH, (quotation omitted); see also Hildegarde, Inc. v. Wright, 244 Minn. 410, 413
Christensen v. Milbank Insurance Co. 658 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 2003
Christensen v. Milbank Insurance Co. 658 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 2003
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
Bates v. Armstrong 603 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Bates v. Armstrong 603 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Hildegarde, Inc. v. Wright, 244 Minn. 410, 413
Molenaar v. United Cattle Co. 553 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Molenaar v. United Cattle Co. 553 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Hildegarde, Inc. v. Wright, 244 Minn. 410, 413
Rudnitski v. Seely 452 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1990
Rudnitski v. Seely 452 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1990
Hildegarde, Inc. v. Wright, 244 Minn. 410, 413
Rudnitski v. Seely 441 N.W.2d 827 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Rudnitski v. Seely 441 N.W.2d 827 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Hildegarde, Inc. v. Wright, 244 Minn. 410, 413
Kampsen v. County of Kandiyohi 441 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 1989
Kampsen v. County of Kandiyohi 441 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 1989
See, e.g., Hildegarde, Inc. v. Wright, 244 Minn. 410 , Borg & Powers Furniture Co. v. Reiling, 213 Minn. 539
Davis v. Midwest Discount Securities, Inc. 439 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Davis v. Midwest Discount Securities, Inc. 439 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See Hildegarde, Inc. v. Wright, 244 Minn. 410, 413
Franklin Auto Body Co. v. Wicker 414 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Franklin Auto Body Co. v. Wicker 414 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hildegarde, Inc. v. Wright, 244 Minn. 410, 413
McKinley v. Flaherty 390 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
McKinley v. Flaherty 390 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hildegarde, Inc. v. Wright, 244 Minn. 410, 413 , , 259 (1955).
Bloomquist v. First National Bank of Elk River 378 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Bloomquist v. First National Bank of Elk River 378 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hildegarde, Inc. v. Wright, 244 Minn. 410, 413
Minnesota Valley Country Club, Inc. v. Gill 356 N.W.2d 356 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Minnesota Valley Country Club, Inc. v. Gill 356 N.W.2d 356 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Hildegarde, Inc. v. Wright, 244 Minn. 410
Inland Construction Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co. 258 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 1977
Inland Construction Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co. 258 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 1977
In Hildegarde, Inc. v. Wright, 244 Minn. 410, 413 , we more fully described the tort as follows: “To constitute conversion, there must be an exercise of dominion over the goods which is inconsistent with and in repudiation of the owner’s right to the goods or some act done which destroys or changes their character or deprives the owner
Hornblower & Weeks-Hemphill Noyes v. Lazere 222 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 1974
Hornblower & Weeks-Hemphill Noyes v. Lazere 222 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 1974
Co. 188 Minn. 112 , Hildegarde, Inc. v. Wright, 244 Minn. 410

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by