Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Midland National Bank of Minneapolis v. Perranoski, 299 N.W.2d 404.

82 citing documents.

Swenson v. Bender 764 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Swenson v. Bender 764 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(requiring fiduciary relationship and breach).
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
The general rule is that “one party to a transaction has no duty to disclose material facts to the other” except “when the parties are in a fiduciary relationship with each other.” Midland Nat’l (citation and quotation omitted).
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
Midland Nat’l (citation omitted).
Rehn v. Fischley 557 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1997
Rehn v. Fischley 557 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1997
Spanier v. TCF Bank Savings 495 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Spanier v. TCF Bank Savings 495 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Midland Nat’l (directed verdict); (JNOV), pet.
Appletree Square I Ltd. Partnership v. Investmark, Inc. 494 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Appletree Square I Ltd. Partnership v. Investmark, Inc. 494 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Claflin v. Commercial State Bank of Two Harbors 487 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Claflin v. Commercial State Bank of Two Harbors 487 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Cummins v. Klenk 474 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Cummins v. Klenk 474 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
HIGGINS ON BEHALF OF HIGGINS v. Winter 474 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
HIGGINS ON BEHALF OF HIGGINS v. Winter 474 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
ANALYSIS I. For the purpose of a motion for directed verdict, “the trial court must consider the record as a whole and treat as credible the evidence for the adverse party and all inferences which may be reasonably drawn from that evidence.” Midland Nat’l
Amoco Oil Co. v. Jones 467 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Amoco Oil Co. v. Jones 467 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Strong v. Richfield State Agency, Inc. 460 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Strong v. Richfield State Agency, Inc. 460 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Schuler v. Meschke 435 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Schuler v. Meschke 435 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
the court held “a fiduciary relation exists when confidence is reposed on one side and there is resulting superiority on the other.” Id.
Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency v. City of St. Peter 433 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency v. City of St. Peter 433 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
The general rule is that “one party to a transaction has no duty to disclose material facts to the other” except “when the parties are in a fiduciary relationship with each other.”
St. Croix Printing Equipment, Inc. v. Rockwell International Corp. 428 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
St. Croix Printing Equipment, Inc. v. Rockwell International Corp. 428 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
at 203-04 , d at 187 (emphasis added); (where the supreme court suggests that justifiable reliance must take into account the specific intelligence and experience of the aggrieved party).
Avery v. Solargizer International, Inc. 427 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Avery v. Solargizer International, Inc. 427 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Todalen v. United States Chemical Co. 424 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Todalen v. United States Chemical Co. 424 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
the supreme court stated: A motion for a directed verdict presents a question of law regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to raise a fact question for the jury’s decision.
State Bank of Hamburg v. Stoeckmann 417 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State Bank of Hamburg v. Stoeckmann 417 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Klein, 293 Minn. at 421-22 , d at 622-23 ; MacKenzie v. Summit National Bank of St.
Williams v. Millward 412 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Williams v. Millward 412 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Johnson v. Hed 410 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Johnson v. Hed 410 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
at 333 , d at 831 ; -13 (Minn.1980) (opinion as to future value may be actionable if the one making statement is relied upon for his expertise with respect to subject of statement).
City of Burnsville v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. 409 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
City of Burnsville v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. 409 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
for rev. denied, (Minn. July 17, 1985) ().
Kulkay v. Allied Central Stores, Inc. 398 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kulkay v. Allied Central Stores, Inc. 398 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Shea v. Hanna Mining Co. 397 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Shea v. Hanna Mining Co. 397 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(setting out elements of fraudulent misrepresentation).
Norwest Bank Hastings v. Clapp 394 N.W.2d 176 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Norwest Bank Hastings v. Clapp 394 N.W.2d 176 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
the supreme court stated that “[a] fiduciary relationship exists when confidence is reposed on one side and there is resulting superiority [and influence] on the other * * Id.
Lang v. Glusica 387 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Lang v. Glusica 387 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
First American National Bank of St. Cloud v. Hommerding 381 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
First American National Bank of St. Cloud v. Hommerding 381 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
the supreme court stated: A motion for a directed verdict presents a question of law regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to raise a fact question for the jury’s decision.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by