Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Northern Petrochemical Co. v. United States Fire Insurance Co., 277 N.W.2d 408.

84 citing documents.

Department of Human Services v. Muriel Humphrey Residences 436 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Department of Human Services v. Muriel Humphrey Residences 436 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Mutual Service Life Insurance Co. v. Galaxy Builders, Inc. 435 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Mutual Service Life Insurance Co. v. Galaxy Builders, Inc. 435 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Hydra-Mac, Inc. v. Onan Corp. 430 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Hydra-Mac, Inc. v. Onan Corp. 430 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
pet for rev. denied (Minn. February 5, 1985).
Fronning v. Blume 429 N.W.2d 310 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Fronning v. Blume 429 N.W.2d 310 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Jurgens 424 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Jurgens 424 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Tackleson v. Abbott-Northwestern Hospital, Inc. 415 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Tackleson v. Abbott-Northwestern Hospital, Inc. 415 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Re the Contested Case of Emmanuel Nursing Home 411 N.W.2d 511 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Re the Contested Case of Emmanuel Nursing Home 411 N.W.2d 511 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
To establish a claim of estoppel Emmanuel must prove that the Department “ ‘[M]ade representations or inducements, upon which [relator] reasonably relied, and that [relator] will be harmed if the claim of estoppel is not allowed.’ ” ().
Lano Equipment, Inc. v. Clark Equipment Co. 399 N.W.2d 694 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lano Equipment, Inc. v. Clark Equipment Co. 399 N.W.2d 694 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
which states: To establish a claim of estoppel, plaintiff must prove that defendant made representations or inducements, upon which plaintiff reasonably relied, and that plaintiff will be harmed if the claim of estop-pel is not allowed.
Watson v. Stonewings on the Lake 393 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Watson v. Stonewings on the Lake 393 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Re the Petition of Halberg Construction & Supply, Inc. 385 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Re the Petition of Halberg Construction & Supply, Inc. 385 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Brown v. Minnesota Department of Public Welfare 368 N.W.2d 906 Minn. 1985
Brown v. Minnesota Department of Public Welfare 368 N.W.2d 906 Minn. 1985
Bethesda Lutheran Church v. Twin City Construction Co. 356 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Bethesda Lutheran Church v. Twin City Construction Co. 356 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Sohns v. Pederson 354 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Sohns v. Pederson 354 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Dalager v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. 350 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Dalager v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. 350 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Given the deference we are required to accord a jury’s verdict, see, we find that the evidence of causation and negligence was sufficient to support the verdict.
Neuberger v. Hennepin County Workhouse 340 N.W.2d 330 Minn. 1983
Neuberger v. Hennepin County Workhouse 340 N.W.2d 330 Minn. 1983
Willmar Poultry Co. v. Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., 520 F.2d 289, 296 (8th Cir.1975), cert.
Brenner v. Nordby 306 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 1981
Brenner v. Nordby 306 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 1981
Broughton v. Curran V. Nielsen Co. 287 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 1979
Broughton v. Curran V. Nielsen Co. 287 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 1979