Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Desnick v. Mast, 249 N.W.2d 878.

36 citing documents.

Circle Reflection “J” Ranch, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Desnick v. Mast, 311 Minn. 356, 365
Wheeler v. State 909 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2018
Wheeler v. State 909 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2018
See, e.g. , Dobrin v. Dobrin , , 200 n.1 (Minn. 1997) (noting that the case happened to be "assigned to a different judge" on remand, even though no party requested reassignment); Desnick v. Mast , 311 Minn. 356 , , 883 n.2 (1976) (noting that "we expect[ed] that" the district court judge whose participation had been challenged "would prefer not to sit further on the case").
Dunn v. National Beverage Corp. 729 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Dunn v. National Beverage Corp. 729 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
“A repudiation by one party to a contract if acquiesced in by the other party is tantamount to a rescission.” Desnick v. Mast, 311 Minn. 356, 365
Loppe v. Steiner 699 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Loppe v. Steiner 699 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Abandonment “must be clearly expressed, and acts and conduct of the parties to be sufficient must be positive, unequivocal, and inconsistent with the existence of the contract.” Desnick v. Mast, 311 Minn. 356, 365
Powell v. Anderson 660 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 2003
Powell v. Anderson 660 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 2003
son and Rider Bennett “immediately before and after the Powell oral argument;” and (4) the fact that “Judge Amundson was stealing from that trust.” Respondents emphasize that the trust attorney, Greene, had no contact with the attorneys who argued the Powell case, and they argue that Judge Amundson’s resignation and misconduct are “wholly unrelated to this case.” Respondents cite Desnick v. Mast, 311 Minn. 356 , as controlling precedent.
S.B. Foot Tanning Co. v. Piotrowski 554 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
S.B. Foot Tanning Co. v. Piotrowski 554 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See Desnick v. Mast, 311 Minn. 356, 365 , (mutual abandonment must be clearly expressed and the acts of the parties must be positive and unequivocal).
Res Investment Co. v. County of Dakota 494 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Res Investment Co. v. County of Dakota 494 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Desnick v. Mast, 311 Minn. 356, 365 , -84 (1976).
Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc. 483 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1992
Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc. 483 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1992
Desnick v. Mast, 311 Minn. 356, 365
Concordia College Corp. v. Salvation Army 470 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Concordia College Corp. v. Salvation Army 470 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Desnick v. Mast, 311 Minn. 356, 366 , (citation omitted).
Levin v. C.O.M.B. Co. 441 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1989
Levin v. C.O.M.B. Co. 441 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1989
Whether a contract has been rescinded by mutual consent is, as a general rule, a question for the trier of fact; but, as we have previously noted, “mutual abandonment, cancellation or rescission must be clearly expressed, and acts and conduct of the parties to be sufficient must be positive, unequivocal, and inconsistent with the existence of the contract.” Desnick v. Mast, 311 Minn. 356, 365
Berg v. Ackman 431 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Berg v. Ackman 431 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Desnick v. Mast, 311 Minn. 356
Nunnelee v. Schuna 431 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Nunnelee v. Schuna 431 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
for rev. denied (Minn. March 21, 1986) (citing Desnick v. Mast, 311 Minn. 356, 366, ).
Winter v. Skoglund 404 N.W.2d 786 Minn. 1987
Northern Timberline Equipment, Inc. v. Gustafson 386 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Northern Timberline Equipment, Inc. v. Gustafson 386 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Desnick v. Mast, 311 Minn. 356, 365
Brunsoman v. Lexington-Silverwood 385 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Brunsoman v. Lexington-Silverwood 385 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Desnick v. Mast, 311 Minn. 356, 365
Esselman v. Production Credit Ass'n of St. Cloud 380 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Esselman v. Production Credit Ass'n of St. Cloud 380 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Desnick v. Mast, 311 Minn. 356, 366
City of St. Charles v. Stevens 354 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
City of St. Charles v. Stevens 354 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Desnick v. Mast, 311 Minn. 356, 365 , (emphasis added).
Miles v. City of Oakdale 323 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1982
Miles v. City of Oakdale 323 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1982
Desnick v. Mast, 311 Minn. 356
Republic National Life Insurance Co. v. Marquette Bank & Trust Co. of Rochester 295 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1980
Republic National Life Insurance Co. v. Marquette Bank & Trust Co. of Rochester 295 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1980
Desnick v. Mast, 311 Minn. 356, 365 , Country Club Oil Co. v. Lee, 239 Minn. 148, 154

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by