Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Powers v. Siats, 70 N.W.2d 344.

24 citing documents.

Joe Hoffman v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The supreme court has defined the doctrine of impossibility to allow a contractual duty to be excused “due to the existence of a fact or circumstance of which the promisor at the time of the making of the contract neither knew nor had reason to know.”
In re the Estate of Jacob A Alderink, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2026
nonperformance of a contractual duty when “due to the existence of a fact or circumstance of which the promisor at the time of the making of the contract neither knew nor had reason to know” renders performance impossible or “impracticable in the sense that performance would cast upon the promisor an excessive or unreason ably burdensome hardship, loss, expense, or injury.”
In re the Marriage of: Todd Charles Bork v. Carolyn Mitsu Bork Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Marriage of: Todd Charles Bork v. Carolyn Mitsu Bork Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See, (describing impossibility defense to contract claims).
August Ventures, LLC, et al v. Gedney Foods Company Minn. Ct. App. 2024
August Ventures, LLC, et al v. Gedney Foods Company Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Fitness International, LLC v. City Center Ventures, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Powers v. Siats , (footnote omitted) .
Mesabi Metallics Company, LLC, et al v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The supreme court has defined the doctrine of impossibility as allowing for performance of a contractual duty to be excused “due to the existence of a fact or circumstance of which the promisor at the time of the making of the contract neither knew nor had reason to know.”
Aspenwood Condominium of Duluth, Inc. v. PMA Companies, member of the Old Republic Insurance Group Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Powers v. Siats , ( footnote omitted).
GGG, Incorporation v. Jon T. Samuelson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See, (“[P]erformance of a contractual duty may be excused when, due to the existence of a fact or circumstance of which the promisor at the time of the making of the 21 contract neither knew nor had reason to know, performance becomes impossible .
Schmitz v. United States Steel Corp. 831 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Schmitz v. United States Steel Corp. 831 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Powers v. Siats, 244 Minn. 515, 520-21
Metro Gold, Inc. v. Coin 757 N.W.2d 924 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Metro Gold, Inc. v. Coin 757 N.W.2d 924 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
” Powers v. Siats, 244 Minn. 515, 520
National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. v. Fuel Recovery Co. 432 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. v. Fuel Recovery Co. 432 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In Powers v. Siats, 244 Minn. 515 , the supreme court discussed the doctrine of impossibility, stating: [Performance of a contractual duty may be excused when, due to the existence of a fact or circumstances of which the promisor at the time of the making of the contract neither knew nor had reason to know, performance becomes im
First National Bank of Shakopee v. Edison Homes, Inc. 415 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
First National Bank of Shakopee v. Edison Homes, Inc. 415 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Powers v. Siats, 244 Minn. 515 , the supreme court discussed the doctrine of impossibility stating: [Performance of a contractual duty may be excused when, due to the existence of a fact or circumstances of which the promisor at the time of the making of the contract neither knew nor had reason to know, performance becomes impo
Burgi v. Eckes 354 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Burgi v. Eckes 354 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See Powers v. Siats, 244 Minn. 515, 520
Johnson v. A-1 Petroleum, Inc. 352 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Johnson v. A-1 Petroleum, Inc. 352 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Powers v. Siats, 244 Minn. 515, 520 , the Minnesota Supreme Court declared that the doctrine was applicable to those situations in which events unforeseen at the time of contracting produce an excessive hardship upon one of the parties which was not reasonably contemplated or expected at the time of the execution of the c
Automatic Alarm Corp. v. Ellis 99 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1959
Automatic Alarm Corp. v. Ellis 99 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1959
Village of Minneota v. Fairbanks, Morse & Co. 226 Minn. 1 , 31 N. W. (2d) 920 ; Orme v. Atlas Gas & Oil Co. 217 Minn. 27 , 13 N. W. (2d) 757 ; Powers v. Siats, 244 Minn. 515 , 70 N. W. (2d) 344 ; Western States Utilities Co. v. City of Waseca, 242 Minn. 302 , 65 N. W. (2d) 255 .