Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Albright v. Henry, 174 N.W.2d 106.

35 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Denial of Line of Duty Death Benefits for Dallas Edeburn. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A case’s syllabus “summarizes the [authoring court’s] holding.” d 106, 111 (Minn. 1970).
Larry Koch, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Contrary to the watershed district’s argument that this syllabus point is dictum, 8 the supreme court has stated that “the syllabus summarizes the [authoring court’s] holding.” (citing syllabus of prior opinion as authority).
Gregory T. Dyrdal v. James Wallenberg Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Gregory T. Dyrdal v. James Wallenberg Minn. Ct. App. 2024
As the supreme court has stated, the syllabus of a case “summarizes the [authoring court’s] holding.” (citing syllabus of a prior opinion as authority).
Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Co. 5 The syllabus of a case “summarizes the [authoring court’s] holding.” If prepared by the court, a syllabus may be legal authority.
Merceil Burkhalter v. Dedrick D. Mays, Building Trades Federal Credit Union 877 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Merceil Burkhalter v. Dedrick D. Mays, Building Trades Federal Credit Union 877 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
This holding comports with Minnesota’s long-recognized standard that “[a] deed absolute in form but intended by the parties as security is regarded in equity as a mortgage.” Albright v. Henry, 285 Minn. 452, 461, (quoting City of Shakopee v. Kopp & Assocs., Inc., 280 Minn. 511, 513, ).
Franklin C. Olson v. Rustic Bar, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Franklin C. Olson v. Rustic Bar, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The purpose of summary judgment is to determine whether issues of fact exist, not to resolve issues of fact.” (citing Albright v. Henry, 285 Minn. 452, 464, ), 8 review granted and stayed (Minn. Sept.
Todd Anderson v. Patricia Lloyd Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Todd Anderson v. Patricia Lloyd Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The purpose of summary judgment is to determine whether issues of fact exist, not to resolve issues of fact.” d 696, 702 (Minn. App. 2012) (citing Albright v. Henry, 285 Minn. 452, 464, d 106, 113 (1970)), review granted and stayed (Minn. Sept.
Fain v. Andersen 816 N.W.2d 696 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Fain v. Andersen 816 N.W.2d 696 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Albright v. Henry, 285 Minn. 452, 464
Riverview Muir Doran, LLC v. JADT Development Group, LLC 776 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Riverview Muir Doran, LLC v. JADT Development Group, LLC 776 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Albright v. Henry, 285 Minn. 452, 464
Dykes v. Sukup Manufacturing Co. 761 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Dykes v. Sukup Manufacturing Co. 761 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Albright v. Henry, 285 Minn. 452, 464
Fraser v. Fraser 702 N.W.2d 283 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Fraser v. Fraser 702 N.W.2d 283 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
See Albright v. Henry, 285 Minn. 452, 462-63 , (noting that because cancellation does not effect a valid foreclosure of an equitable mortgage, the contention that an equitable-mortgage claim must be asserted within the contract-for-deed redemption period is “entirely without authority or merit”); Coddon v. Youngkrantz, 562 N.W.
AMRESCO Residential Mortgage Corp. v. Stange 631 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
AMRESCO Residential Mortgage Corp. v. Stange 631 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Albright v. Henry, 285 Minn. 452, 459-60 , (construing the municipal-court statute and finding that municipal courts must transfer an unlawful de-tainer case to the district court when an equitable defense is asserted because the court has no jurisdiction to hear the equitable defense); Leader v. Joyce, 271 Minn. 9, 12, 135
Bogatzki v. Hoffman 430 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Bogatzki v. Hoffman 430 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Albright v. Henry, 285 Minn. 452, 464
Miller v. Anderson 394 N.W.2d 279 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Miller v. Anderson 394 N.W.2d 279 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
They rely on language from Albright v. Henry, 285 Minn. 452 , that *283 when the real nature of a transaction between the parties is that of a loan, advanced upon the security of realty granted to the party making the loan, whatever the form of the instrument of conveyance taken as the security, it is treated in equity as a mortgage.
Sievert v. LaMarca 383 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Sievert v. LaMarca 383 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Dumas v. Kessler & Maguire Funeral Home, Inc. 380 N.W.2d 544 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Dumas v. Kessler & Maguire Funeral Home, Inc. 380 N.W.2d 544 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Albright v. Henry, 285 Minn. 452
Gilliland v. PORT AUTH. OF CITY OF ST. PAUL 270 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 1978
Gilliland v. PORT AUTH. OF CITY OF ST. PAUL 270 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 1978
Albright v. Henry, 285 Minn. 452 , Gagne v. Hoban, 280 Minn. 475
Gorder v. Sims 237 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 1975
Gorder v. Sims 237 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 1975
See, Ginsberg v. Williams, 270 Minn. 474 , Albright v. Henry, 285 Minn. 452
Ekberg v. Thein 191 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 1971
Ekberg v. Thein 191 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 1971
These factors all bearing on the question of intent distinguish the instant case from Albright v. Henry, 285 Minn. 452 , which involved a “hardship” situation and complex procedural difficulties.