Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lake Company v. Molan, 131 N.W.2d 734.

32 citing documents.

Hegenes Properties, LLC v. Michelle Rodriguez, John Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Studios, Inc., (alteration in original) ().
Mesabi Metallics Company, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A condition precedent is a condition “which is to be performed before the agreement of the parties becomes operative.” (quoting Chambers v. Nw.
In re the Estate of: Hazel E. Bach, Deceased. Minn. 2022
(addressing a contract provision governing a real estate commission); Hobart v. Kehoe, 126 N.W.
Daniel D. Oberpriller, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Contractors, Inc. , (“When contracting pa rties make the reduction of their agreement to writing and its signature by them a condition precedent to its completion, there will be no contract until that is done, and this is true although all the terms have been agreed upon.”); see also Lake Co. v. M olan, (“A condition precedent, as known in the law, is one which is to be performed before the agreement of the parties becomes operative.”) (quotation omitted).
Capistrant v. Lifetouch Nat'l Sch. Studios, Inc. 916 N.W.2d 23 Minn. 2018
Capistrant v. Lifetouch Nat'l Sch. Studios, Inc. 916 N.W.2d 23 Minn. 2018
Lake Co. v. Molan , 269 Minn. 490 , , 740 (1964) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. v. United Stockyards Corp. , 298 Minn. 428 , , 476 (1974) (explaining that a condition precedent is a fact that must occur before the promisor is obligated to perform).
Crossroads Church of Prior Lake v. County of Dakota 800 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 2011
Crossroads Church of Prior Lake v. County of Dakota 800 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 2011
Lake Co. v. Molan, 269 Minn. 490, 498-99 , -40 (1964) (citing *616 Chambers v. Nw.
McLaughlin v. Heikkila 697 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
McLaughlin v. Heikkila 697 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
See, e.g., Callender v. Kalscheuer, 289 Minn. 532, 533 , (“Under the statute, if an owner of land makes a definite and complete written offer to sell, written acceptance of the offer by the other party results in the formation of an enforceable contract.”); Lake Co. v. Molan, 269 Minn. 490, 496 , (“[T]o constitute a contract, valid within the statute of frauds, to convey real estate, an offer in writing to sell must be accepted in writing.”); Bey v. Keeping, 192 Minn. 283, 286, 256 N.W.
R.A., Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. 556 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
R.A., Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. 556 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
The Minnesota Supreme Court, in Lake Co. v. Molan, 269 Minn. 490 , stated: A condition precedent, as known in the law, is one which is to be performed before the agreement of the parties becomes operative.
Crince v. Kulzer 498 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Crince v. Kulzer 498 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Lake Co. v. Molan, 269 Minn. 490, 497
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. General Mills, Inc. 460 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. General Mills, Inc. 460 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Lake Company v. Molan, 269 Minn. 490, 498-99
National Union Fire Insurance v. Schwing America, Inc. 446 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
National Union Fire Insurance v. Schwing America, Inc. 446 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Lake Co. v. Molan, 269 Minn. 490, 498-99 , (quoting Chambers v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., 64 Minn. 495, 497 , 67 N.W.
Aslakson v. Home Savings Ass'n 416 N.W.2d 786 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Aslakson v. Home Savings Ass'n 416 N.W.2d 786 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lake Company v. Molan, 269 Minn. 490, 498-99
Hanson v. Moeller 376 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hanson v. Moeller 376 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See The Lake Co. v. Molan, 269 Minn. 490
Rose v. Guerdon Industries, Inc. 374 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Rose v. Guerdon Industries, Inc. 374 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Lake Company v. Molan, 269 Minn. 490, 497 , Minn.Stat.
Schwinn v. Griffith 303 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 1981
Schwinn v. Griffith 303 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 1981
See Callendar v. Kalscheuer, 289 Minn. 532 , (per curiam); Lake Co. v. Molan, 269 Minn. 490 , Bey v. Keeping, 192 Minn. 283 , 256 N.W.
Hehl v. Estate of Klotter 277 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1979
Hehl v. Estate of Klotter 277 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1979
We have, in one line of decisions, enunciated the rule that a written offer of real estate must be accepted in writing, Lake Company v. Molan, 269 Minn. 490, 496 , which places us among a small minority of jurisdictions adhering to that rule.
Callender v. Kalscheuer 184 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 1971
Callender v. Kalscheuer 184 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 1971
The Lake Company v. Molan, 269 Minn. 490 , 131 N. W. (2d) 734 .
Butler v. Hatfield 152 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1967
Butler v. Hatfield 152 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1967
(2d) Contracts, § 24; The Lake Co. v. Molan, 269 Minn. 490 , 131 N. W. (2d) 734 .