Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing Corporation, 149 N.W.2d 37.

137 citing documents.

Stowman v. Carlson Companies, Inc. 430 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing Corp., 276 Minn. 116
Avery v. Solargizer International, Inc. 427 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Avery v. Solargizer International, Inc. 427 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199, 202-03 , Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing Corp., 276 Minn. 116, 117 , -39 (1967).
Eustis v. David Agency, Inc. 417 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Eustis v. David Agency, Inc. 417 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See generally Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing Corp., 276 Minn. 116, 117 , -39 (1967).
MCC INVESTMENTS v. Crystal Properties 415 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
MCC INVESTMENTS v. Crystal Properties 415 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing Corp., 276 Minn. 116, 117 , -39 (1967)
Davis v. Johnson 415 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Davis v. Johnson 415 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing Corp., 276 Minn. 116, 117 , -39 (Minn.1967) (quoting Hanson v. Ford Motor Co., 278 F.2d 586, 591 (8 Cir.1960)).
Hurley v. TCF Banking & Savings, F.A. 414 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hurley v. TCF Banking & Savings, F.A. 414 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing Corp., 276 Minn. 116, 117 , -9 (1967).
Lampert Lumber Co. v. Ram Construction 413 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lampert Lumber Co. v. Ram Construction 413 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing Corp., 276 Minn. 116, 117 , -39 (1967).
Simonsen v. BTH PROPERTIES 410 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Johnson v. Hed 410 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Simonsen v. BTH PROPERTIES 410 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Citing Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing Corp., 276 Minn. 116, 117 , (first element of fraud claim is that there must be a representation).
Johnson v. Hed 410 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
That damage must be attributable to the misrepresentation, that is, the statement must be the proximate cause of the injury.” Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing Corp., 276 Minn. 116, 117 , -39 (1967) (quoting Hanson v. Ford Motor Co., 278 F.2d 586, 591 (8th Cir.1960)).
Maloney v. Ketter 408 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Maloney v. Ketter 408 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing Corp., 276 Minn. 116, 117 , -39 (1967).
Hruska v. Gehling Auction Co., Inc. 404 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hruska v. Gehling Auction Co., Inc. 404 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing Corp., 276 Minn. 116, 117 , -39 (1967).
Nguyen v. Control Data Corp. 401 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Nguyen v. Control Data Corp. 401 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing Corporation, 276 Minn. 116, 117 , -39 (1967).
Kramer v. Bruns 396 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kramer v. Bruns 396 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing Corp., 276 Minn. 116, 117 , -39 (1967).
Nave v. Dovolos 395 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Nave v. Dovolos 395 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
at 202-03 , d at 187 (quoting Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing Corp., 276 Minn. 116, 117 , -39 (1967)).
Karlstad State Bank v. Fritsche 392 N.W.2d 615 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Karlstad State Bank v. Fritsche 392 N.W.2d 615 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing Corp., 276 Minn. 116, 117 , -39 (1967) (quoting Hanson v. Ford Motor Co., 278 F.2d 586, 591 (8th Cir.1960)).
Specialized Tours, Inc. v. Hagen 392 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 1986
Specialized Tours, Inc. v. Hagen 392 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 1986
Burns v. Valene, 298 Minn. 257, 261 , Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing Corp., 276 Minn. 116
Florenzano v. Olson 387 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 1986
Florenzano v. Olson 387 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 1986
Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing Corp., 276 Minn. 116, 117
McBroom v. Al-Chroma, Inc. 386 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
McBroom v. Al-Chroma, Inc. 386 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing Corp., 276 Minn. 116
Benson v. Rostad 384 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Benson v. Rostad 384 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing Corp., 276 Minn. 116, 117 , -39 (1967).
Sullivan v. Ouimet 377 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Sullivan v. Ouimet 377 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing Corp., 276 Minn. 116, 117 , -39 (1967).
Wood v. Schlagel 375 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Wood v. Schlagel 375 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
For fraudulent misrepresentation to be actionable, the damage suffered “must be attributable to the misrepresentation, that is, the statement must be the proximate cause of the injury.” Davis v. Retrac Manufacturing Corporation, 276 Minn. 116, 117
Yost v. Millhouse 373 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Yost v. Millhouse 373 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing, 276 Minn. 116, 117 , -39 (1967).
Juster Steel v. Carlson Companies 366 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Juster Steel v. Carlson Companies 366 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The trial court ruled as a matter of law that the pleaded facts did not constitute a cause of action in fraud as defined by Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing Corp., 276 Minn. 116
Dubbe v. Lano Equipment, Inc. 362 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Dubbe v. Lano Equipment, Inc. 362 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Corp., 276 Minn. 116, 117 , -39 (1967).
Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Minneapolis v. Community Insurance Agency, Inc. 359 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Minneapolis v. Community Insurance Agency, Inc. 359 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Davis v. Re-trac Manufacturing Corp., 276 Minn. 116
Deutz & Crow Co., Inc. v. Anderson 354 N.W.2d 482 Minn. Ct. App. 1984