Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Parkin v. Fitzgerald, 240 N.W.2d 828.

31 citing documents.

A25-1854 A25-1856 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
is consistent with Parkin v. Fitzgerald , which explained that “[a] nonretaliatory reason is a reason wholly unrelated to and unmotivated by any good -faith activity on the part of the tenant protected by the statute,” such as “nonpayment of rent, other material breach of covenant, continuing damage to premises by tenants, or removal of housing unit from market for a sound business reason.” d 828, 832- 33 (Minn. 1976).
Pedcor Management Corp, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Second, the district court 2 which they allege is “binding precedent.” Appellants contend that Parkin “holds that a notice demanding an inaccurate or inflated amount of rent is legally defective and defeats the court’s jurisdiction.” Parkin actually held, under a different statute, that “if a notice to quit was served within 90
TE Miller Development LLC v. Corey Devante Jones, John Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2025
TE Miller Development LLC v. Corey Devante Jones, John Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“A nonretaliatory reason is a reason wholly unrelated to and unmotivated by any good- faith activity on the part of the tenant protected by the statute (e.g., nonpayment of rent .
Hook & Ladder Apartments, L.P., Respondent, vs. Nichole Nalewaja, Appellant, John Doe, et. al., Defendants Minn. 2025
Hook & Ladder Apartments, L.P., Respondent, vs. Nichole Nalewaja, Appellant, John Doe, et. al., Defendants Minn. 2025
See, (concluding that an eviction action was retaliatory and noting that any breach by the tenant was waived because the landlord continued to accept rent for five months).
Matthew Davies, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(stating purpose of retaliatory- eviction statute is to provide “the tenant with substantial weapons in his day-to-day struggle for decent-quality housing”).
Juan Cuate v. Pedro Cuate-Dominguez Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Juan Cuate v. Pedro Cuate-Dominguez Minn. Ct. App. 2024
v. Schwabe, (recognizing an implicit finding that a housing authority’s unlawful detainer action did not constitute a retaliatory eviction in a district court’s determination that a tenant had violated the terms of her lease ()).
Daniel Hill, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A landlord must establish by a fair pre ponderance of the evidence a substantial nonretaliatory reason for the ev iction, arising at or within a reasonably short time before service of the notice to quit.”
Little Earth of United Tribes Housing Corp., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Timberland Partners, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Nationwide Housing Corporation, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Parkin v. Fitzgerald, 307 Minn. 423, 425 –26, –31 (1976).
Arrow Southampton, LLC v. Jeremiah Akinnola Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Arrow Southampton, LLC v. Jeremiah Akinnola Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The purpose of the retaliatory-eviction defense is to give effect to the “substantial weapons” the law provides for the “day-to-day struggle for decent-quality housing.” Parkin v. Fitzgerald, 307 Minn. 423, 427
Paul Koski v. Sharon Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Paul Koski v. Sharon Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Parkin v. Fitzgerald, 307 Minn. 423, 425
Andrew Ellis v. Danielle Thompson, Abdul R. Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Andrew Ellis v. Danielle Thompson, Abdul R. Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Fritz v. Warthen, 298 Minn. 54, 59, see also Parkin v. Fitzgerald, 307 Minn. 423, 427- 5 28, (stating that a landlord’s breach of the implied statutory covenant of habitability may justify the tenant’s withholding rent); (stating that breach of covenants of habitabili
Cloverdale Foods of Minnesota, Inc. v. Snacks 580 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Cloverdale Foods of Minnesota, Inc. v. Snacks 580 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See Parkin v. Fitzgerald, 307 Minn. 423, 427 , (purpose of retaliatory eviction defense is to provide “the tenant with substantial weapons in his day-to-day struggle for decent-quality housing”).
Westminster Corp. v. Anderson 536 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Westminster Corp. v. Anderson 536 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Parkin v. Fitzgerald, 307 Minn. 423, 431
Federal Land Bank of Saint Paul v. Obermoller 429 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Federal Land Bank of Saint Paul v. Obermoller 429 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(the appellant leased an apartment from the respondents); Parkin v. Fitzgerald, 307 Minn. 423 , (tenants and landlords entered into an oral lease creating a month-to-month tenancy in a house); Olson v. Bowen, 291 Minn. 546 , (the plaintiff-owners of a mobile home park leased a trailer site to the defendants on an oral month-to-month basis).
Priordale Mall Investors v. Farrington 411 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Priordale Mall Investors v. Farrington 411 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Parkin v. Fitzgerald, 307 Minn. 423, 431 , Thomas Peebles & Co. v. Sherman, 148 Minn. 282, 283 , 181 N.W.
White Earth Housing Authority v. Schwabe 375 N.W.2d 568 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
White Earth Housing Authority v. Schwabe 375 N.W.2d 568 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Parkin v. Fitzgerald, 307 Minn. 423
Barnes v. Weis Management Co. 347 N.W.2d 519 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Barnes v. Weis Management Co. 347 N.W.2d 519 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Parkin v. Fitzgerald, 307 Minn. 423, 427-28

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by