Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Brenner v. Nordby, 306 N.W.2d 126.

30 citing documents.

SINGELMAN v. St. Francis Medical Center 777 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
SINGELMAN v. St. Francis Medical Center 777 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Rhee v. Golden Home Builders, Inc. 617 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Rhee v. Golden Home Builders, Inc. 617 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
“Estoppel depends on the facts of each case and ordinarily presents a question for the jury.”
Stottler v. Meyers Printing Company 602 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Stottler v. Meyers Printing Company 602 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
1 (insurer who induced homeowner to refrain from suing on representation that investigation might lead to settlement, estopped from asserting statute of limitations defense); Albachten v. Bradley, 212 Minn. 359, 369-70 , (oral agreement to wait until after expiration of limitati
Oreck v. Harvey Homes, Inc. 602 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Oreck v. Harvey Homes, Inc. 602 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
“Estoppel depends on the facts of each case and ordinarily presents a question for the jury.”
Simplex Supplies, Inc. v. Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. 586 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Simplex Supplies, Inc. v. Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. 586 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc.
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
Rivers v. Richard Schwartz/Neil Weber, Inc. 459 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Rivers v. Richard Schwartz/Neil Weber, Inc. 459 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Co. v. Galaxy Builders, Inc., (), pet.
Matter of Westling Mfg., Inc. 442 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Matter of Westling Mfg., Inc. 442 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
United States Leasing Corp. v. Biba Information Processing Services, Inc. 436 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
United States Leasing Corp. v. Biba Information Processing Services, Inc. 436 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
“While estoppel is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury, when only one inference can be drawn from the facts, the question is one of law.” L & H Transport, Inc. v. Drew Agency, Inc., ().
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
The Minnesota Supreme Court addressed a
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
O’Donnell v. Continental Casualty Co., 263 Minn. 326, 333
L & H TRANSP., INC. v. Drew Agency, Inc. 403 N.W.2d 223 Minn. 1987
L & H TRANSP., INC. v. Drew Agency, Inc. 403 N.W.2d 223 Minn. 1987
While estoppel is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury, when only one inference can be drawn from the facts, the question is one of law.
Wilkie v. Allied Van Lines, Inc. 398 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Wilkie v. Allied Van Lines, Inc. 398 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“Estoppel depends on the facts of each case and ordinarily presents a question for the * * * [factfinder].”
Sievert v. LaMarca 367 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Sievert v. LaMarca 367 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Sohns v. Pederson 354 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Sohns v. Pederson 354 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 1984