Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Miller v. Snedeker, 101 N.W.2d 213.

46 citing documents.

Julianne E. Micken, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-93 (Minn. App. 2009), rev. denied (Minn. July 22, 2009); O’
Jeffrey D. Kuhn v. Richard G. Dunn 8 N.W.3d 633 Minn. 2024
Jeffrey D. Kuhn v. Richard G. Dunn 8 N.W.3d 633 Minn. 2024
(“Only a material breach or a substantial failure in performance gives the seller a right to terminate a contract for deed”), rev. denied (Minn. July 10, 1997); (“The rule appears to be well established that only a material breach of a contract or a substantial failure in its performance justifies a party thereto in rescinding”).
Eric N. Nerland v. Kristy Lee Marie Barsch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Eric N. Nerland v. Kristy Lee Marie Barsch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Miller v. Snedeker, 257 Minn. 204, 215, Braaten, d at 282.
Sitek v. Striker 764 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Sitek v. Striker 764 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In support of her argument, Sitek cites Miller v. Snedeker, 257 Minn. 204 , where the supreme court stated: [T]he right to rescind on the ground of failure of performance belongs to the party who is himself without fault.
Lambert v. Bongard 648 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Lambert v. Bongard 648 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Miller v. Snedeker, 257 Minn. 204, 219-20
Vossen v. Parker 609 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Vossen v. Parker 609 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Cf. Miller v. Snedeker, 257 Minn. 204 , 215 n. 4, , 222 n. 4 (1960) (“Minnesota Standards for Title Examinations, No. 25, provides: ‘An examiner may disregard an unsatisfied mortgage of record, when 15 years have elapsed since its maturity,’ referring to § 541.03.”).
Pine Valley Meats, Inc. v. Canal Capital Corp. 566 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Pine Valley Meats, Inc. v. Canal Capital Corp. 566 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Miller v. Snedeker, 257 Minn. 204, 215
Coddon v. Youngkrantz 562 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Coddon v. Youngkrantz 562 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Miller v. Snedeker, 257 Minn. 204, 219 , -25 (1960).
Madson v. Overby 425 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Madson v. Overby 425 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
E.g., Miller v. Snedeker, 257 Minn. 204
Roseberg v. Steen 415 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Roseberg v. Steen 415 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Miller v. Snedeker, 257 Minn. 204, 218
Larson v. Amundson 414 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Larson v. Amundson 414 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Miller v. Snedeker, 257 Minn. 204, 215 , (emphasis added).
Kosbau v. Dress 400 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kosbau v. Dress 400 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Miller v. Snedeker, 257 Minn. 204, 219-20
Braaten v. Jarvi 347 N.W.2d 279 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Braaten v. Jarvi 347 N.W.2d 279 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Miller v. Snedeker, 257 Minn. 204, 215
Dunlap Investors Ltd. v. Hogan 650 P.2d 432 Ariz. 1982
Guider v. MAYCO INC. 252 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 1977
Guider v. MAYCO INC. 252 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 1977
See, Miller v. Snedeker, 257 Minn. 204 , Boulevard Plaza Corp. v. Campbell, 254 Minn. 123
Gustafson v. Gervais 189 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 1971
Gustafson v. Gervais 189 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 1971
The failure or refusal of one party to an executory contract to perform constitutes a legal justification for the other party to rescind and demand to be restored to his former position, if he is himself without fault.” The general rule relating to remedies of a purchaser under a land contract is stated in Miller v. Snedeker, 257 Minn. 204, 216 , 101 N. W. (2d) 213 , 223: “The rule seems to be well established in this state that on default by the vendor in a contract to convey, the vendee may ma
Bloomer v. Bloomer 185 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 1971
Bloomer v. Bloomer 185 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 1971
Miller v. Snedeker, 257 Minn. 204 , 101 N. W. (2d) 213 ; Butch Levy Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Sallblad, 267 Minn. 283 , 126 N. W. (2d) 380 ; Breen v. Cameron, 132 Minn. 357 , ; Donovan v. Dixon, 261 Minn. 455 , 113 N. W. (2d) 432 ; Boulevard Plaza Corp. v. Campbell, 254 Minn. 123 , 94 N. W. (2d) 273 ; Holt v. Swenson, 252 Minn. 510
Cohler v. Smith 158 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1968
Cohler v. Smith 158 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1968
Based on these facts, plaintiffs contend that there has been a waiver by defendants of their right of cancellation, citing to support their contention Jandric v. Skahen, 235 Minn. 256 , 50 N. W. (2d) 625 ; Ode-gaard v. Moe, 264 Minn. 324 , 119 N. W. (2d) 281 ; Miller v. Snedeker, 257 Minn. 204 , 101 N. W. (2d) 213 ; Craigmile v. Sorenson, 241 Minn. 222 , 62 N. W. (2d) 846 .
Butch Levy Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Sallblad 126 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 1964
Butch Levy Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Sallblad 126 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 1964
In Miller v. Snedeker, 257 Minn. 204, 209 , 101 N. W. (2d) 213, 219 , this court said: “* * * Ordinarily it is not our province to go into any extended discussion of the evidence to prove or demonstrate the absolute correctness of the findings of the trial court.
Liebsch v. Abbott 122 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 1963
Liebsch v. Abbott 122 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 1963
Miller v. Snedeker, 257 Minn. 204 , 101 N. W. (2d) 213 .
Costello v. Johnson 121 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 1963
Costello v. Johnson 121 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 1963
Co. 244 Minn. 192 , 69 N. W. *212 (2d) 660; Lipinski v. Lipinski, 227 Minn. 511 , 35 N. W. (2d) 708 ; Boulevard Plaza Corp. v. Campbell, 254 Minn. 123 , 94 N. W. (2d) 273 ; Miller v. Snedeker, 257 Minn. 204 , 101 N. W. (2d) 213 .
Nelson v. Tripp 118 N.W.2d 805 Minn. 1962
Nelson v. Tripp 118 N.W.2d 805 Minn. 1962
Miller v. Snedeker, 257 Minn. 204 , 101 N. W. (2d) 213 .
Melco Investment Co. v. Gapp 105 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1960
Melco Investment Co. v. Gapp 105 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1960
Miller v. Snedeker, 257 Minn. 204, 219 , 101 N. W. (2d) 213, 225 ; Boulevard Plaza Corp. v. Campbell, 254 Minn. 123 , 94 N. W. (2d) 273 .
Hynan v. FIRST TRUST COMPANY OF ST. PAUL 103 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 1960
Hynan v. FIRST TRUST COMPANY OF ST. PAUL 103 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 1960
Miller v. Snedeker, 257 Minn. 204 , 101 N. W. (2d) 213 , and cases cited.