Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc., 306 N.W.2d 114.

60 citing documents.

Nicole LaPoint v. Family Orthodontics, P. A. 872 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Nicole LaPoint v. Family Orthodontics, P. A. 872 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Health Plan, Inc., (holding that contract of employment did not exist between pharmacist and health clinic, despite pharmacist’s acceptance of clinic’s offer of employment, where pharmacist had not commenced work and both had power to terminate agreement at will).
KBW Associates, Inc. v. W.L. Hall Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
KBW Associates, Inc. v. W.L. Hall Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Capital Midwest Fund, LP v. Douglas E. Johnson, Steven Quay Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Capital Midwest Fund, LP v. Douglas E. Johnson, Steven Quay Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Olson v. Synergistic Technologies Business Systems, Inc. 628 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 2001
Olson v. Synergistic Technologies Business Systems, Inc. 628 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 2001
The special concurrence concludes that in Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc., we recognized that promissory estoppel is a principle of contract law.
Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 616 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 2000
Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 616 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 2000
Promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine that “implies] a contract in law where none exists in fact.” Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc., see also United Elec.
Deli v. University of Minnesota 578 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Deli v. University of Minnesota 578 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See Cohen, d at 390 (concluding promissory estop-pel variation of contract theory); Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc., (concluding promissory es-toppel is principle of contract law); see generally Comment, Once More Into the Breach: Promissory Estoppel and Traditional Damage Doctrine, 37 U. Chi.
Gorham v. Benson Optical 539 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Gorham v. Benson Optical 539 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Restatement of Contracts § 90 (1932), 1 quoted in Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
Axelson v. Minneapolis Teachers' Retirement Fund Ass'n 532 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Axelson v. Minneapolis Teachers' Retirement Fund Ass'n 532 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc. 526 N.W.2d 369 Minn. 1995
Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc. 526 N.W.2d 369 Minn. 1995
Promissory estoppel is a creature of equity which implies “a contract in law where none exist in fact.” Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
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
See Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. 479 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 1992
Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. 479 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 1992
Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 26 Wis.2d 683, 698 , see also Kramer v. Alpine Valley Resort, Inc., 108 Wis.2d 417, 422 , (third element is a question of law); Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc., (this court on appeal found all three elements of promissory estoppel were present).
Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. v. Midwestern MacHinery Co. 481 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. v. Midwestern MacHinery Co. 481 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
Michaelson v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 474 N.W.2d 174 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Michaelson v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 474 N.W.2d 174 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc., if an employee gives independent consideration beyond his personal employment services, that can create a contract which requires good cause for discharge, Bussard v. College of St.
Dallum v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc. 462 N.W.2d 608 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Dallum v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc. 462 N.W.2d 608 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
1, 1989); (citing Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc., ); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90 (1981).
United Shippers Cooperative v. Soukup 459 N.W.2d 343 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
United Shippers Cooperative v. Soukup 459 N.W.2d 343 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
The equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel implies “ ‘a contract in law where none exists in fact.’ ” Froelich v. Aspenal, Inc., (quoting Grouse v. Group *346 Health Plan, Inc., ).
Knudsen v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 450 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1990
Knudsen v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 450 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1990
Thomas, Inc., 294 Minn. 215, 223 , (independent consideration beyond personal employment services can create a contract limiting discharge to good cause); Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc., (promissory estoppel principles used to imply good faith opportunity to perform duties; thus plaintiff was entitled to damages he incurred by leaving employment in reliance upon an employment offer which was revoked before plaintiff could begin to work).
McNeill & Associates, Inc. v. ITT Life Insurance Corp. 446 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
McNeill & Associates, Inc. v. ITT Life Insurance Corp. 446 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
Rognlien v. Carter 443 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Rognlien v. Carter 443 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc., (quoting Restatement of Contracts § 90 (1932)).
Bratton v. Menard, Inc. 438 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Bratton v. Menard, Inc. 438 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc., (employer revoked job offer despite employee’s resignation from prior job and rejection of other job offer).
Knudsen v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 437 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Knudsen v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 437 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
Whipple v. Independent School District No. 621 424 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Whipple v. Independent School District No. 621 424 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
II Damages for promissory estoppel “may be limited as justice requires.” Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
Harris v. Mardan Business Systems, Inc. 421 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Harris v. Mardan Business Systems, Inc. 421 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp. 396 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp. 396 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See also Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc., (promissory *591 estoppel principles provide cause of action for terminated at-will employee); Bussard v. College of St.
Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States 389 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1986
Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States 389 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1986
See, e.g., Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc., Bussard v. College of St.
Dumas v. Kessler & Maguire Funeral Home, Inc. 380 N.W.2d 544 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Dumas v. Kessler & Maguire Funeral Home, Inc. 380 N.W.2d 544 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In allowing a cause of action for promissory estoppel, the Eklund court cited Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc., which stated that a claim for promissory estoppel may be applicable after employment has begun “under appropriate circumstances.” Id.