Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cambern v. Hubbling, 238 N.W.2d 622.

27 citing documents.

BGD, LLC v. Stephen K. Burns, Pacer Minerals, LLC, a South Dakota Limited Liability Company, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(requiring assent between the parties to modify a contract); Webb Bus.
Nogodjouan Diomande, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See, (affirming district court on other grounds).
State of Minnesota v. Hurie Tyrone Boclair Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Hurie Tyrone Boclair Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The supreme court has established that, even “[i]f the trial court’s rule is correct, it is not to be reversed solely because its stated reason was not correct.”
Philip Carlson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
624 (Minn. 1976) (“If the trial court’s rule is correct, it is not to be reversed solely because its stated reason was not correct.”).
State v. Poehler 921 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Poehler 921 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Cambern v. Hubbling , 307 Minn. 168 , , 624 (1976) ; see also State v. Grunig , , 137 (Minn. 2003) ("A respondent can raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision when there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support
Scott J. Zimmer, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The provision reads: “If the terms of said offer are changed, then the right of first refusal given hereby to Tenant shall be revived and said offer shall again be submitted to Tenant for the period and i n the manner herein stated.” Contracts generally c annot be unilaterally modified, Cambern v. Hubbling , 307 Minn. 168, 171, d 622, 624 (1976) , and the ability to revive the right of first refusal when there is a modification o nly makes sense if the right is triggered by an offer , not by a b
Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co. 817 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 2012
Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis 817 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2012
Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis 817 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2012
Cambern v. Hubbling, 307 Minn. 168, 171 , (stating the general rule that if a district court’s “rule is correct, it is not reversed solely because its stated reason was not correct”); Winkler, d at 827 .
Larson v. Lakeview Lofts, LLC 804 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Larson v. Lakeview Lofts, LLC 804 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
See, e.g., Cambern v. Hubbling, 307 Minn. 168, 172 , (breach-of-warranty damages measured from the time and place of acceptance of the goods); (“The measure of damages in conversion cases is generally the value of the property at the time of the conversion plus interest.
Independent School District No. 404 v. Castor 670 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Independent School District No. 404 v. Castor 670 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
See Camben v. Hubbling, 307 Minn. 168, 171
First National Bank in Worthington v. State 406 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
First National Bank in Worthington v. State 406 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Cambern v. Hubbling, 307 Minn. 168
Marriage of Sand v. Sand 379 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Sand v. Sand 379 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“A decision is not to be reversed if it is correct although based .on incorrect grounds.” citing Cambern v. Hubbling, 307 Minn. 168
Braaten v. Midwest Farm Shows 360 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Braaten v. Midwest Farm Shows 360 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Cambern v. Hubbling, 307 Minn. 168
Forbes v. Independent School District No. 196 358 N.W.2d 150 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Forbes v. Independent School District No. 196 358 N.W.2d 150 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Cambern v. Hubbling, 307 Minn. 168
Kahn v. State 289 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1980
Kahn v. State 289 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1980
Schoeb v. Cowles, 279 Minn. 331, 336 , Cambern v. Hubbling, 307 Minn. 168, 171
Durfee v. Rod Baxter Imports, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 1977
Durfee v. Rod Baxter Imports, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 1977
See, Cambern v. Hubbling, 307 Minn. 168 , Dougall v. Brown Bay Boat *356 Works & Sales, Inc., 287 Minn. 290 , Zabriskie Chevrolet, Inc. v. Smith, 99 N.J.Super.