Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 175 N.W.2d 184.

55 citing documents.

Ola Abdelaziz, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. , , 187 (Minn. 1970) (“(1) There must be a representation.
Robert Allen Taylor Company v. United Credit Recovery, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, US Bancorp, a Delaware … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Robert Allen Taylor Company v. United Credit Recovery, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, US Bancorp, a Delaware … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(citing Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199, ).
Bolander v. Bolander 703 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Bolander v. Bolander 703 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
(noting inconsistencies in caselaw on the standard of proof and relying on Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199, 203 , ), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Ag Services of America, Inc. v. Schroeder 693 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Ag Services of America, Inc. v. Schroeder 693 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
See, e.g., Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199, 202-03 , *236 overruled on other grounds by State by Humphrey v. Alpine Air Prods., Inc., (listing essential elements necessary to establish intentional misrepresentation).
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Alpine Air Products, Inc. 500 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 1993
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Alpine Air Products, Inc. 500 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 1993
In 1970, in direct contrast to the holding in Martin , we said, “[fjraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, especially where a party seeks to avoid the effects of a written instrument.” Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199, 203
Hanks v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. 493 N.W.2d 302 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Hanks v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. 493 N.W.2d 302 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199, 202-03
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Alpine Air Products, Inc. 490 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Alpine Air Products, Inc. 490 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
In Weise v. Red Owl Stores, 286 Minn. 199, 203 , the supreme court stated: Fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, especially where a par *892 ty seeks to avoid the effects of a written instrument.
Beasley v. Medin 479 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Beasley v. Medin 479 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199, 203
M.H. v. Caritas Family Services 475 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
M.H. v. Caritas Family Services 475 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199, 202-03
Corazalla v. Quie 473 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Corazalla v. Quie 473 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199, 202-03 , *350 Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing Corp., 276 Minn. 116, 117 , -39 (1967).
Estate of Jones Ex Rel. Blume v. Kvamme 449 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 1989
Estate of Jones Ex Rel. Blume v. Kvamme 449 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 1989
Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199, 204 , *432 (dictum).
Taylor v. Sheehan 435 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Taylor v. Sheehan 435 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
ANALYSIS I. Standard of Proof Sheehan argues that “[f]raud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, especially where a party seeks to avoid the effects of a written instrument.” See Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199, 203 , (citing Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 301 , 166 N.W.
ESTATE OF JONES BY BLUME v. Kvamme 430 N.W.2d 188 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
ESTATE OF JONES BY BLUME v. Kvamme 430 N.W.2d 188 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
*195 3) Kvamme alleges that the special verdict form used was deficient as a matter of law because it did not set forth all of the essential elements of fraud as found in Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199, 202-03
St. Croix Printing Equipment, Inc. v. Rockwell International Corp. 428 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
St. Croix Printing Equipment, Inc. v. Rockwell International Corp. 428 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199, 202-03 , (emphasis added).
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).
Brink v. Larson 411 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Brink v. Larson 411 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
ANALYSIS I In Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199, 202-03 , the Minnesota Supreme Court identified 11 elements that must be proved in order to establish a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation.
Lynn Beechler Realty Co. v. Warnygora 396 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Lynn Beechler Realty Co. v. Warnygora 396 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199, 202
Nave v. Dovolos 395 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Nave v. Dovolos 395 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The elements of fraudulent misrepresentation are set forth in Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199 , : (1) There must be a representation.
Saltou v. Dependable Ins. Co., Inc. 394 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Saltou v. Dependable Ins. Co., Inc. 394 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Wise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199, 202
First National Bank of Shakopee v. Halo Investments 394 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
First National Bank of Shakopee v. Halo Investments 394 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199, 202-03
Boyd v. DeGardner Realty & Construction 390 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Boyd v. DeGardner Realty & Construction 390 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“Fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, especially where a party seeks to avoid the effects of a written instrument.” Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199, 203
Johnson Building Co. v. River Bluff Development Co. 374 N.W.2d 187 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Johnson Building Co. v. River Bluff Development Co. 374 N.W.2d 187 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The elements of fraudulent misrepresentation are set forth in Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199 , : (1) There must be a representation.
Sievert v. LaMarca 367 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Sievert v. LaMarca 367 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199, 203 , (relying on Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 301 , 166 N.W.
Florenzano v. Olson 358 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Florenzano v. Olson 358 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199
Barr/Nelson, Inc. v. Tonto's, Inc. 336 N.W.2d 46 Minn. 1983
Barr/Nelson, Inc. v. Tonto's, Inc. 336 N.W.2d 46 Minn. 1983
The trial court instructed the jury on the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation, as listed in Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199 , and as requested by Tonto’s. When the jury requested additional instruction on fraud after jury deliberations had begun, the court repeated part of the original instructions.
Midland National Bank of Minneapolis v. Perranoski 299 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 1980