Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Berg v. Xerxes-Southdale Office Building Co., 290 N.W.2d 612.

23 citing documents.

Anshuman Bhatia, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Co., (quotation omitted).
SRRT Properties, LP, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Plaza Holdings, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Co., (explaining that Minnesota courts follow out-of-pocket rule and that plaintiff does not suffer damages if property is worth what he gave for it ).
Barker v. County of Lyon 813 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Barker v. County of Lyon 813 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Co., but Berg concerns fraud, not promissory estoppel, and its holding is very narrow: "Absent proof of an agency relationship allowing one partner to act on behalf of the others, the issue of whether members of a limited partnership unreasonably relied upon a financial statement must be determined as a m
Bryan v. Kissoon 767 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Bryan v. Kissoon 767 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Hoyt Properties, Inc. v. Production Resource Group, L.L.C. 716 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Hoyt Properties, Inc. v. Production Resource Group, L.L.C. 716 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Co., Piache, 179 Minn, at 150, 228 N.W.
Greuling v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. 690 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Greuling v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. 690 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Co., (finding reasonable reliance to be a question of fact).
Nicollet Restoration, Inc. v. City of St. Paul 533 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 1995
Nicollet Restoration, Inc. v. City of St. Paul 533 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 1995
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
Veit v. Anderson 428 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Veit v. Anderson 428 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(question to be asked in determining whether reliance is reasonable is “not whether the representation would deceive the average man” but whether the representation was calculated to deceive “a person of the capacity and experience of the particular individual”); Lewis v. Citizens Agency of Madelia, I
Williams v. Dow Chemical Co. 415 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Williams v. Dow Chemical Co. 415 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
To note just a few of the problems with this claim: (1) Williams can prove no damages, since even if they had notified him of the settlement, he would still have had to take legal action if, as is likely, everyone had refused to pay him; (2) statements of future intent are generally not actionable unless they misrepresent present fact, and (3) Williams asserts no reliance other than that he refrained “from filing formal attorneys liens and taking other appropriate steps to collect his fee.” Yet
Bond v. Charlson 374 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1985
Bond v. Charlson 374 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1985
Midland National Bank of Minneapolis v. Perranoski 299 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 1980
Midland National Bank of Minneapolis v. Perranoski 299 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 1980