Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Swanson v. Domning, 86 N.W.2d 716.

53 citing documents.

Jeffrey Beckman v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Robert A. Tenold v. Green Line Home Services, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jeffrey Beckman v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Robert A. Tenold v. Green Line Home Services, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Swanson v. Domning, 251 Minn. 110, 116-17, -22 (1957).
In re Kathryn M. Truscott f/k/a Kathryn M. Ranheim, Stacey A. McNeely v. Kathryn M. Truscott f/k/a Kathryn … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re Kathryn M. Truscott f/k/a Kathryn M. Ranheim, Stacey A. McNeely v. Kathryn M. Truscott f/k/a Kathryn … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(concluding that, even if communications were privileged, the privilege was fully waived through the client’s pretrial disclosure of documents); Tahash, 278 Minn. at 306- 08, d at 204-05 (finding that a criminal defendant waived privilege by voluntarily testifying to his attorney’s advice to plead guilty); Swanson v. Domning, 251 Minn. 110, 118, (stating that waiver exists “[w]here the client voluntarily testifies to [privileged] statements alleged to have been made to an attorney or statements
Renee C. Kinzer v. CitiMortgage, Inc., Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, David Kinzer, Parmount Title, LLC, Kelly Potratz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Renee C. Kinzer v. CitiMortgage, Inc., Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, David Kinzer, Parmount Title, LLC, Kelly Potratz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
467, 471 (1889) (noting that a contract may be void if its material terms are altered without the knowledge of a party); Swanson v. Domning, 251 Minn. 110, 112-13, 115, d 716, 719-20 (1957) (noting that a contract may be voidable when acceptance was induced by fraudulent statements by the other party); (noting that a claim of fraud committed by the other party in the inducement of a contract may be arbit
EOP-Nicollet Mall, L.L.C. v. County of Hennepin 723 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 2006
Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. 445 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. 445 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Cohen alternatively relies on Swanson v. Domning, 251 Minn. 110, 117 , which held that where a principal becomes aware that an agent has made untrue representations of fact, regardless of whether the agent himself knew the representations were untrue, the principal may not retain the benefits of that transaction and at the same time escape liability for
Sports Page, Inc. v. First Union Management, Inc. 438 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Sports Page, Inc. v. First Union Management, Inc. 438 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Swanson v. Domning, 251 Minn. 110, 119 , Universal Lending Corp. v. Wirth Companies, Inc.
In Re the Real Estate Salesperson's License of Perron 437 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re the Real Estate Salesperson's License of Perron 437 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Swanson v. Domning, 251 Minn. 110, 115
Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency v. City of St. Peter 433 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency v. City of St. Peter 433 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Swanson v. Domning, 251 Minn. 110, 114
Centennial Insurance Co. v. Zylberberg 422 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Centennial Insurance Co. v. Zylberberg 422 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Swanson v. Domning, 251 Minn. 110, 116-17
Simonsen v. BTH PROPERTIES 410 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Simonsen v. BTH PROPERTIES 410 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Swanson v. Domning, 251 Minn. 110, 114 , (footnote omitted); see also e.g., Hanson v. Ford Motor Co., 278 F.2d 586, 591 (8th Cir.1960) (Black-mun, J.).
Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Co. v. North Lakes Construction, Inc. 400 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Co. v. North Lakes Construction, Inc. 400 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Swanson v. Domning, 251 Minn. 110, 119
Nave v. Dovolos 395 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Nave v. Dovolos 395 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
An intent to deceive no longer is necessary.” Swanson v. Domning, 251 Minn. 110, 115 , (footnote omitted); see Hollerman v. F.H.
Benson v. Rostad 384 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Benson v. Rostad 384 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Swanson v. Domning, 251 Minn. 110
Vettleson v. Special School District No. 1 361 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Vettleson v. Special School District No. 1 361 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Id.; Swanson v. Domning, 251 Minn. 110 , (true facts must be susceptible of knowledge).
State Bank of Morristown v. Labs 275 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1979
State Bank of Morristown v. Labs 275 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1979
Cf., Swanson v. Domning, 251 Minn. 110, 119 , (waiver and estoppel are affirmative defenses that must be pleaded and cannot be considered for the first time on appeal).
Raach v. Haverly 269 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 1978
Raach v. Haverly 269 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 1978
The present case is dissimilar to Swanson v. Domning, 251 Minn. 110 , where a principal was forced to disgorge benefits obtained under a contract fraudulently induced by an agent.
Lewis v. Citizens Agency of Madelia, Inc. 235 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 1975
Lewis v. Citizens Agency of Madelia, Inc. 235 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 1975
aid: *199 “* * * In reviewing this issue we are controlled by the principle of law that if a person represents as true material facts susceptible of knowledge to one who relies and acts thereon1 to his injury, the one making the representation cannot defeat recovery by showing that he did not know his representation's were false or that he believed them to be true.” See, also, Swanson v. Domning, 251 Minn. 110
Village of Burnsville v. WESTWOOD COMPANY 189 N.W.2d 392 Minn. 1971
Village of Burnsville v. WESTWOOD COMPANY 189 N.W.2d 392 Minn. 1971
“* * * where, after learning of the fraud, a principal retains the benefits of a transaction consummated for him by an agent as the result of a fraudulent representation, he takes the benefits subject to the taints under which they were obtained.” Swanson v. Domning, 251 Minn. 110, 116 , 86 N. W. (2d) 716, 721 .
Berryman v. Riegert 175 N.W.2d 438 Minn. 1970
Berryman v. Riegert 175 N.W.2d 438 Minn. 1970
Belisle v. Southdale Realty Co. 283 Minn. 537 , 168 N. W. (2d) 361 ; Cady v. Bush, 283 Minn. 105 , 166 N. W. (2d) 358 ; Swanson v. Domning, 251 Minn. 110 , 86 N. W. (2d) 716 ; 8A Dunnell, Dig.
Credit, Inc. v. Kutzik 159 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1968
Credit, Inc. v. Kutzik 159 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1968
Swanson v. Domning, 251 Minn. 110 , 86 N. W. (2d) 716 .
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 .
State Ex Rel. Schuler v. Tahash 154 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1967
State Ex Rel. Schuler v. Tahash 154 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1967
(2d) 542, § 7[b], states the majority rule that “a party waives the privilege by voluntarily testifying to communications with his counsel, particularly where the party’s testimony reflected upon the attorney.” In Swanson v. Domning, 251 Minn. 110, 118 , 86 N. W. (2d) 716, 722 , a civil case, this court quoted with approval from Steen v. First Nat.
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
(3 ed.) §§ 3818, 3821; Hollerman v. F. H. Peavey & Co. 269 Minn. 221 , 130 N. W. (2d) 534 ; Hafner v. Ritzinger, 256 Minn. 196 , 97 N. W. (2d) 839 ; Swanson v. Domning, 251 Minn. 110 , 86 N. W. (2d) 716 ; Spiess v. Brandt, supra; 37 C. J. S., Fraud, § 27.
Swedeen v. Swedeen 134 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 1965
Swedeen v. Swedeen 134 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 1965
In Swanson v. Domning, 251 Minn. 110, 115 , 86 N. W. (2d) 716, 720 , we said: “Fraudulent intent may be proved by showing that the party knew his statements to be false; or that, having no knowledge of their truth or falsity, he did not believe them to be true; or that, having no knowledge of their truth or falsity, he yet represented them to be true of
Hollerman v. F. H. Peavey & Co. 130 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1964
Hollerman v. F. H. Peavey & Co. 130 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1964
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.” We pointed out in Swanson v. Domning, 251 Minn. 110 , 86 N. W. (2d) 716 , that an intent to deceive is no longer necessary, nor is it nece
Hafner v. Ritzinger 97 N.W.2d 839 Minn. 1959