Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Don Kral Incorporated v. Lindstrom, 173 N.W.2d 921.

36 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of: H.B., Child. Minn. 2022
s, we may not impose our preference because “it is the role of the trial court to make that determination.” See Sefkow, d at 211 (finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making a custody decision for the father when the evidence would have also supported a decision in favor of the mother); see also Kenney, d at 223 () (“When the D-19 record reasonably supports the findings at issue on appeal, ‘it is immaterial that the record might also provide a reasonable basis for inferen
Perham Hospital District, Minn. 2022
“[I]t is 16 immaterial that the record might also provide a reasonable basis for inferences and findings to the contrary.”
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment Minn. 2021
15 record might also provide a reasonable basis for inferences and findings to the contrary .”
Distinguished Paul Stepnes, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Dykes, d at 581-82 (describing settlement agreements) ; see also Don Kral Inc. v. 14 Lindstrom, (describing when an accord and satisfaction discharge prior debt).
Webb Business Promotions, Inc. v. American Electronics & Entertainment Corp. 617 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 2000
Webb Business Promotions, Inc. v. American Electronics & Entertainment Corp. 617 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 2000
See Don Kral Inc. v. Lindstrom, 286 Minn. 37, 39
Becker v. F & H Restaurant Group, Inc. 413 N.W.2d 202 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Becker v. F & H Restaurant Group, Inc. 413 N.W.2d 202 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Don Kral Inc. v. Lindstrom, 286 Minn. 37, 39 , (citations omitted).
Novus Equities Corp. v. EM-TY Partnership 366 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Novus Equities Corp. v. EM-TY Partnership 366 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See, e.g., Don Kral, Inc. v. Lindstrom, 286 Minn. 37
Action Instruments Co., Inc. v. Hi-G, Inc. 359 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Action Instruments Co., Inc. v. Hi-G, Inc. 359 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Don Kral Inc. v. Lindstrom, 286 Minn. 37
In Re the Estate of Larson 359 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Re the Estate of Larson 359 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Don Krai Inc. v. Lindstrom, 286 Minn. 37, 42
Twin City Hide v. Transamerica Insurance Co. 358 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Twin City Hide v. Transamerica Insurance Co. 358 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
(citing Don Kral, Inc. v. Lindstrom, 286 Minn. 37 , ).
Total Equipment Leasing Corp. v. LaRue Investment Corp. 357 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Total Equipment Leasing Corp. v. LaRue Investment Corp. 357 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Don Kral Inc. v. Lindstrom, 286 Minn. 37 , the court recognized that an enforceable accord and satisfaction arises when a creditor accepts the debtor’s offer to provide a different performance.
Tretter v. Liquipak International, Inc. 356 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Tretter v. Liquipak International, Inc. 356 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
(citing Don Kral, Inc. v. Lindstrom, 286 Minn. 37 , ).
Haas v. Harris 347 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Haas v. Harris 347 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Don Krai, Inc. v. Lind-strom, 286 Minn. 37
Johnson v. Noot 323 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 1982
Johnson v. Noot 323 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 1982
Don Kral, Inc. v. Lindstrom, 286 Minn. 37, 42
Faust v. Parrott 270 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 1978
Faust v. Parrott 270 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 1978
Hansen v. Hansen, 284 Minn. 1 , Don Kral Inc. v. Lindstrom, 286 Minn. 37 , Gibeau v. Mayo, 280 Minn. 170 , 1B Dunnell, Dig.
Wichelman v. Wichelman 236 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 1975
Wichelman v. Wichelman 236 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 1975
Don Kral Inc. v. Lindstrom, 286 Minn. 37, 42
Burmeister Electric Company v. Lee 226 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1975
Burmeister Electric Company v. Lee 226 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1975
Disposition of such an issue is governed by the oft-repeated rule summarized by our court in Don Kral Inc. v. Lindstrom, 286 Minn. 37, 42 , where we said: “The function of a court of review is not to weigh the evidence as if trying the matter de novo, but to determine from an examination of the record if the evidence as a' whole sustains the trial court’s findings, and if it does so, it is immaterial that the record mig
Crawford Door Sales Co. v. Cross 223 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1974
Crawford Door Sales Co. v. Cross 223 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1974
Don Kral Inc. v. Lindstrom, 286 Minn. 37, 41
Roaderick v. Lull Engineering Company, Inc. 208 N.W.2d 761 Minn. 1973
Roaderick v. Lull Engineering Company, Inc. 208 N.W.2d 761 Minn. 1973
Don Kral Inc. v. Lindstrom, 286 Minn. 37
New Amsterdam Casualty Company v. Lundquist 198 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 1972
New Amsterdam Casualty Company v. Lundquist 198 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 1972
Furthermore, in considering the weight and sufficiency of the evidence, it is unnecessary for an appellate court to detail the evidence in order to demonstrate the absolute correctness of the trial court’s findings of fact.” Don Kral Inc. v. Lindstrom, 286 Minn. 37, 42