Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 65 N.W.2d 641.

147 citing documents.

A19-1654 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Amos Graves v. Michael Wayman, First Minnesota Bank 859 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 2015
Amos Graves v. Michael Wayman, First Minnesota Bank 859 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 2015
“Rescission” is “the unmaking or abrogation of a contract.” Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 420, 423 , 646 (1954) (“[T]o rescind a contract is not merely to terminate it but to abrogate it and undo it from the beginning.” (citing 1 Black, Rescission and Cancellation § 1 (2d ed.))).
Busch v. Model Corp. 708 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Busch v. Model Corp. 708 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 421-22
Hickman v. SAFECO Insurance Co. of America 695 N.W.2d 365 Minn. 2005
Hickman v. SAFECO Insurance Co. of America 695 N.W.2d 365 Minn. 2005
Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 424
Kuhl v. Heinen 672 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Kuhl v. Heinen 672 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 424
Henderson v. Allina Health System 609 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Henderson v. Allina Health System 609 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 424
Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency 551 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency 551 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 424
Frank v. Winter 528 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Frank v. Winter 528 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 424
In re Proposed Locke Lake Project 528 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
In re Proposed Locke Lake Project 528 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(citing Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 424 , ).
Anderson Ex Rel. Anderson v. Shaughnessy 519 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Anderson Ex Rel. Anderson v. Shaughnessy 519 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 424
Helgerson v. Bridon Cordage, Inc. 518 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Helgerson v. Bridon Cordage, Inc. 518 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
The reviewing court “must take a view of the evidence most favorable to the one against whom the [summary judgment] motion was granted.” Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 424
Howie v. Thomas 514 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Howie v. Thomas 514 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 424 , (summary judgment); Zinnel, d at 498 (directed verdict).
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Hertzberg 511 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Hertzberg 511 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 424
Cox v. Minnesota Insurance Guaranty Ass'n 508 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Cox v. Minnesota Insurance Guaranty Ass'n 508 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 424
Fabio v. Bellomo 504 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1993
Fabio v. Bellomo 504 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1993
Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 424
Butler v. Leadens Investigations & Security, Inc. 503 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Butler v. Leadens Investigations & Security, Inc. 503 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
The reviewing court “must take a view of the evidence most favorable to the one against whom the [summary judgment] motion was granted.” Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 424
Sylvester Bros. Development Co. v. Great Central Insurance Co. 503 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Sylvester Bros. Development Co. v. Great Central Insurance Co. 503 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 424
Odegard v. Finne 500 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Odegard v. Finne 500 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
” Offerdahl, d at 427 (quoting Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 424 , ).
Hunter v. Nash Finch Co. 498 N.W.2d 759 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Hunter v. Nash Finch Co. 498 N.W.2d 759 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 424
Drager Ex Rel. Gutzman v. Aluminum Industries Corp. 495 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Fabio v. Bellomo 489 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Fabio v. Bellomo 489 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(quoting Abdallah Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 424 , ).
Strauss v. Thorne 490 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Strauss v. Thorne 490 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 424
Hanson v. Brothers and One, Inc. 491 N.W.2d 292 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Hanson v. Brothers and One, Inc. 491 N.W.2d 292 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
The reviewing court “must take a view of the evidence most favorable to the one against whom the [summary judgment] motion was granted.” Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 424
SHANNON SALES CO., INC. v. Williams 490 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
SHANNON SALES CO., INC. v. Williams 490 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 424 , quoted in Offerdahl v. University of Minn. Hosps.
Ruzic v. City of Eden Prairie 479 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Ruzic v. City of Eden Prairie 479 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 424
City of Virginia v. Northland Office Properties Ltd. Partnership 465 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
City of Virginia v. Northland Office Properties Ltd. Partnership 465 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
When reviewing a summary judgment, the reviewing court “must take a view of the evidence most favorable to the one against whom the motion was granted.” Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 424