Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kopperud v. Agers, 312 N.W.2d 443.
- A24-1652 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- Michelle Young, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-
Scott Rilley v. MoneyMutual, LLC
884 N.W.2d 321
Minn. 2016
enforce consumer protection suits.”); (“Minnesota has an obvious interest in providing a forum since Minnesotans were defrauded.”).
- Minnesota Laborers Health & Welfare Fund v. Granite Re, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2014
-
Minnesota Laborers Health & Welfare Fund v. Granite Re, Inc.
844 N.W.2d 509
Minn. 2014
(citing Schmucking, 183 Minn. 37 , 235 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
Philip Morris argues that “[b]ecause the discovery rule and the fraudulent concealment doctrine ‘achieve the same result’ — preventing the statute of limitations from running until the plaintiff learns, or should learn, of his cause of action — where the discovery rule does not apply, neither does fraudulent concealment.” to support this argument.
- Marshall v. Inn on Madeline Island 610 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
-
Marshall v. Inn on Madeline Island
610 N.W.2d 670
Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See, (exercising jurisdiction where foreign defendant’s contacts involved scheme to defraud Minnesota investors).
- Jensen v. RLK & CO. 534 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
- Jenson v. R.L.K. & Co. 534 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
-
Jenson v. R.L.K. & Co.
534 N.W.2d 719
Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See, (foreign defendant’s contacts involving scheme to defraud Minnesota investor’s and knowledge that Minnesota investors were in fact being solicited for scheme gave rise to jurisdiction); First Heartland Sur.
-
Jensen v. RLK & CO.
534 N.W.2d 719
Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See, (foreign defendant's contacts involving scheme to defraud Minnesota investor's and knowledge that Minnesota investors were in fact being solicited for scheme gave rise to jurisdiction); First Heartland Sur.
- Bellboy Seafood Corp. v. Kent Trading Corp. 484 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 1992
- Bellboy Seafood Corp. v. Kent Trading Corp. 473 N.W.2d 384 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
-
Bellboy Seafood Corp. v. Kent Trading Corp.
473 N.W.2d 384
Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Similarly, -83 (Minn.1982), -46 (Minn.1981), the Minnesota Supreme Court found sufficient forum contacts where the defendants participated in a scheme to defraud Minnesota investors.
- Semrad v. Edina Realty, Inc. 470 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- Semrad v. Edina Realty, Inc. 470 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- FIRST HEARTLAND SUR. & CAS. v. Meyer 468 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- FIRST HEARTLAND SUR. & CAS. v. Meyer 468 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- Larson v. Dunn 460 N.W.2d 39 Minn. 1990
-
Larson v. Dunn
460 N.W.2d 39
Minn. 1990
Further, because “fraudulent concealment of th[e] cause of action will prevent the running of the statute of limitations,” see also Minn.Stat.
- Stangel v. Rucker 398 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Stangel v. Rucker 398 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- DeCosse v. Armstrong Cork Co. 319 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1982
- DeCosse v. Armstrong Cork Co. 319 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1982
- Vikse v. Flaby 316 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1982
-
Vikse v. Flaby
316 N.W.2d 276
Minn. 1982
Recently, we held in a similar action brought by different Minnesota plaintiffs against the same defendants as are named in this case that: This is not a case of an isolated or unforeseeable contact with Minnesota.