DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Doyle v. Wohlrabe, 66 N.W.2d 757.

34 citing documents.

  • Doran Development, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Doyle v. Wohlrabe, 243 Minn. 107, 110, d 757, 761 (1954).
  • Todd Johnson v. Britta K. Anderson, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Donnabelle M. Johnson, decedent Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • Todd Johnson v. Britta K. Anderson, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Donnabelle M. Johnson, decedent Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    the land to be conveyed.” Doyle v. Wohlrabe, 243 Minn. 107, 110
  • SN4, LLC v. Anchor Bank, FSB 848 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • SN4, LLC v. Anchor Bank, FSB 848 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    The buyers cite Doyle v. Wohlrabe for the proposition that “a written contract for the conveyance of land, to satisfy the statute of frauds, need only provide that degree of certainty which is reasonably necessary to identify the parties, the land to be conveyed, and the terms and conditions of the promises made by the respective parties to each other.” 243 Minn. 107, 110
  • Glacial Plains Cooperative v. Lindgren 759 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • Glacial Plains Cooperative v. Lindgren 759 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    See Lunning v. Land O’Lakes, (concluding when application of statute of frauds will protect, rather than prevent, fraud, equity requires that doctrine of equitable estoppel be applied); Doyle v. Wohlrabe, 243 Minn. 107 , (stating that basic purpose of statute of frauds is to provide reasonable safeguards to insure honest dealing and it may not be used as an instrument of fraud); Schaefer v. Thoeny, 199 Minn. 610, 614-15 , 273 N.W.
  • Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC 685 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2004
  • Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC 685 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2004
    Berg v. Carlstrom, 347 * (“An agreement may be taken out of the statute of frauds * * * by part performance * * Doyle v. Wohlrabe, 243 Minn. 107, 110 , (“That adherence to the strict letter of the statute or perfection in the drafting of the written conveyance are not ends in themselves is illustrated by the equitable doctrine that the statute may not be used as an instrument of fraud and that part performance may, in some instances
  • Estate of Peterson 579 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • Poser v. Abel 510 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Poser v. Abel 510 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    n. 2; see also Doyle v. Wohlrabe, 243 Minn. 107, 113 , (parol evidence explaining time, place, parties, and other circumstances may be received to aid in interpreting contract terms); 2 Arthur L. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 515 (1950) (oral testimony admissible to explain relationship between memoranda).
  • Rural American Bank of Greenwald v. Herickhoff 485 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1992
  • Rural American Bank of Greenwald v. Herickhoff 485 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1992
    The basic purpose of the writing requirements is to “provide reasonable safeguards to insure honest dealing and [the statute of frauds] was not enacted to make a fetish of literal statutory compliance or a fetish of requiring a perfect written contract.” Greer v. Kooiker, 312 Minn. 499, 505 , citing Doyle v. Wohlrabe, 243 Minn. 107, 110
  • Olson v. Ronhovde 446 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Olson v. Ronhovde 446 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    Doyle v. Wohlrabe, 243 Minn. 107, 110
  • Smoliak v. Myhr 361 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Smoliak v. Myhr 361 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    With respect to the particularity with which property must be described in a contract to convey, the court in Doyle v. Wohlrabe, 243 Minn. 107 , stated: In passing upon the particularity with which the property must be described, it is to be borne in mind that a written contract for the conveyance of land, to satisfy the statute of frauds, need only provide that degree of certainty which is reasonably necessary to identify the parties, t
  • Bouten v. Richard Miller Homes, Inc. 321 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1982
  • Bouten v. Richard Miller Homes, Inc. 321 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1982
    See also Doyle v. Wohlrabe, 243 Minn. 107 , also an action in equity for specific performance.
  • Staples v. Miller 319 N.W.2d 57 Minn. 1982
  • Staples v. Miller 319 N.W.2d 57 Minn. 1982
    Doyle v. Wohlrabe, 243 Minn. 107, 110 , (footnote omitted).
  • Malevich v. Hakola 278 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1979
  • Malevich v. Hakola 278 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1979
    Doyle v. Wohlrabe, 243 Minn. 107
  • Greer v. Kooiker 253 N.W.2d 133 Minn. 1977
  • Greer v. Kooiker 253 N.W.2d 133 Minn. 1977
    Radke v. Brenon, 271 Minn. 35, 38 , Doyle v. Wohlrabe, 243 Minn. 107 , Scott v. Marquette National Bank, 173 Minn. 225 , *505 Swallow v. Strong, 83 Minn. 87
  • Radke v. Brenon 134 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 1965
  • Radke v. Brenon 134 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 1965
    lands, shall be void unless the contract, or some note or memorandum there *38 of, expressing the consideration, is in writing and subscribed by the party by whom the lease or sale is to be made, or by his lawful agent thereunto authorized in writing; and no such contract, when made by an agent, shall be entitled to record unless the authority of such agent be also recorded.” 2 Doyle v. Wohlrabe, 243 Minn. 107 , 66 N. W. (2d) 757 ; Swallow v. Strong, 83 Minn. 87 , .
  • State v. Pahl 100 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 1960
  • State v. Pahl 100 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 1960
    Jimmerson v. Troy Seed Co. 236 Minn. 395 , 53 N. W. (2d) 273 ; Doyle v. Wohlrabe, 243 Minn. 107 , 66 N. W. *184 (2d) 757.
  • Miracle Construction Co. v. Miller 87 N.W.2d 665 Minn. 1958
  • Miracle Construction Co. v. Miller 87 N.W.2d 665 Minn. 1958
    1 Doyle v. Wohlrabe, 243 Minn. 107 , 66 N. W. (2d) 757 , and cases therein cited.
  • Colstad v. Levine 67 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1954
  • Colstad v. Levine 67 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1954
    4 Doyle v. Wohlrabe, 243 Minn. 107 , 66 N. W. (2d) 757 ; Swallow v. Strong, 83 Minn. 87 , ; The Gregory Co. v. Shapiro, 125 Minn. 81 , ; see, 49 Am.