Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Richfield Bank & Trust Co. v. Sjogren, 244 N.W.2d 648.

76 citing documents.

In re: the Matter of the Le Duc Living Trust. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Richfield Bank & Driscoll v. Standard Hardware, Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Amy Sweasy Tamburino, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(quoting Richfield Bank & ).
Doug Hoskin v. Josh Krsnak Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Doug Hoskin v. Josh Krsnak Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Craig A Reichel, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
RSS Fridley, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Steve Dupuis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Richfield Bank & Trust Co. v. Sjogren , 309 Minn. 362, 365
Regents of the University of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Co. v. Sjogren , 309 Minn. 362, 365, (emphasis added) .
KLC Financial, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A claim for fraud based on the failure to disclose material facts fails “unless special circumstances have created a fiduciary relationship.” see Richfield Bank & Trust Co. v. Sjogren, 309 Minn. 362, 365, ( “Before nondisclosure may constitute fraud, .
CSM Equities, LLC v. Woodland Village Investments Limited Partnership Minn. Ct. App. 2016
CSM Equities, LLC v. Woodland Village Investments Limited Partnership Minn. Ct. App. 2016
there must be a suppression of facts which one party is under a legal or equitable obligation to communicate to the other, and which the other party is entitled to have communicated to him.” Richfield Bank & Trust Co. v. Sjogren, 309 Minn. 362, 365
Highland Bank v. Mary L. Wyatt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Highland Bank v. Mary L. Wyatt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Richfield Bank & Trust Co. v. Sjogren, 309 Minn. 362, 365-66
Anthony Patrick Huber v. Jason R. Vohnoutka, Darlene Heimerl Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Anthony Patrick Huber v. Jason R. Vohnoutka, Darlene Heimerl Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In addition, a person may commit fraud by nondisclosure if the person suppressed facts of which he was “under a legal or equitable obligation to communicate to the other, and which the other party is entitled to have communicated to him.” Richfield Bank & Trust Co. v. Sjogren, 309 Minn. 362, 365
Michael Alan Mooney v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Stephen L. Hemsley, William W. McGuire, David J. Lubben Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michael Alan Mooney v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Stephen L. Hemsley, William W. McGuire, David J. Lubben Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Fraudulent-nondisclosure Claims If a party conceals a material fact that is “‛peculiarly within his own knowledge, knowing that the other party acts on the presumption that no such fact exists, it is as much a fraud as if the existence of such fact were expressly denied, or the reverse of it expressly stated.’” Richfield Bank & Trust Co. v. Sjogren, 309 Minn. 362, 365, (quoting Thomas v. Murphy, 87 Minn. 358, 361, 91 N.W.
Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund "A", Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. CVS Caremark Corporation, Appellants/Cross-Respondents, Coborn's Incorporated, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, … 850 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 2014
Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund "A", Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. CVS Caremark Corporation, Appellants/Cross-Respondents, Coborn's Incorporated, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, … 850 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 2014
claims reflects the common law principle that for an omission to be actionable, it must be material to the transaction, U.S. Bank N.A., d at 373, and the party concealing the fact must have been under a legal or equitable obligation to communicate the fact to the other party, Witzman v. Lehrman, Lehrman & Flom, Richfield Bank & Trust Co. v. Sjogren, 309 Minn. 362, 366, d 648, 650 (1976).
U.S. Bank N. A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 802 N.W.2d 363 Minn. 2011
U.S. Bank N. A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 802 N.W.2d 363 Minn. 2011
309 Minn. 362, 365 , (emphasis added) (citing Thomas v. Murphy, 87 Minn. 358, 361 , 91 N.W.
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
” Richfield Bank & Trust Co. v. Sjogren, 309 Minn. 362, 365 , (quotation omitted).
Jane Doe 43C v. Diocese of New Ulm 787 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Jane Doe 43C v. Diocese of New Ulm 787 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
there must be a suppression of facts which one party is under a legal or equitable obligation to communicate to the other, and which the other party is entitled to have communicated to him.” Richfield Bank & Trust Co. v. Sjogren, 309 Minn. 362, 365
Driscoll v. STANDARD HARDWARE, INC. 785 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Driscoll v. STANDARD HARDWARE, INC. 785 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Richfield Bank & Trust Co. v. Sjogren, 309 Minn. 362, 366
Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund 38 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2002
Wells Fargo Bank v. Az Laborers Ariz. 2002
Heidbreder v. Carton 636 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Heidbreder v. Carton 636 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See Richfield Bank & Trust Co. v. Sjogren, 309 Minn. 362, 365 , (fraud may result from suppression of facts that one party is under legal or equitable obligation to communicate to another, and that other party is entitled to have communicated to him).
Flynn v. American Home Products Corp. 627 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Flynn v. American Home Products Corp. 627 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Richfield Bank & Trust Co. v. Sjogren, 309 Minn. 362, 364
Witzman v. Lehrman, Lehrman & Flom 601 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 1999
Witzman v. Lehrman, Lehrman & Flom 601 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 1999
For nondisclosure to constitute fraud, “there must be a suppression of facts which one party is under a legal or equitable obligation to communicate to the other, and which the other party is entitled to have communicated to him.” Richfield Bank & Trust Co. v. Sjogren, 309 Minn. 362, 366
Powell v. Trans Global Tours, Inc. 594 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Powell v. Trans Global Tours, Inc. 594 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Richfield Bank & Trust Co. v. Sjogren, 309 Minn. 362, 365-66
Kesselman v. National Bank of Arizona 937 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Boubelik v. Liberty State Bank 553 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1996
Boubelik v. Liberty State Bank 553 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1996
For example, citing to Richfield Bank & Trust Co. v. Sjogren, 309 Minn. 362 , plaintiffs argue that a bank’s actual knowledge of a customer’s fraud is a special circumstance in which a duty to disclose arises.
Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc. 544 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc. 544 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Id., d at 249 ; Richfield Bank & Trust Co. v. Sjogren, 309 Minn. 362, 369-70
Boubelik v. Liberty State Bank 527 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Boubelik v. Liberty State Bank 527 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
We agree with Liberty that Minnesota courts hold a bank liable for its failure to disclose the poor financial condition of one of its depositors if “the bank had acüiál knoivledge of the fraudulent activities of one of its depositors.” Richfield Bank & Trust Co. v. Sjogren, 309 Minn. 362, 369 , (emphasis in original).
Matter of Boss 487 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Matter of Boss 487 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Richfield Bank and Trust Co. v. Sjogren, 309 Minn. 362, 365
Corazalla v. Quie 473 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Corazalla v. Quie 473 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Richfield Bank & Trust Co. v. Sjogren, 309 Minn. 362, 365
Hassler v. Simon 466 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Hassler v. Simon 466 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Richfield Bank and Trust Co. v. Sjogren, 309 Minn. 362, 369-70