Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Furlev Sales & Associates, Inc. v. North American Automotive Warehouse, Inc., 325 N.W.2d 20.

63 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Warehouse, Inc., n.9 (Minn. 1982)).
Sunlight Senior Living I LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Automotive Warehouse, Inc.
Croix Holdings, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Stephani Martinsen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Harstad v. City of Woodbury 902 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Harstad v. City of Woodbury 902 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Warehouse, Inc., -28 , 27 n.9 (Minn. 1982) (stating that proper admission of tape recording requires foundation including “seven foundational elements”).
Shane A. Kennedy, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Izell Wright Robinson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Izell Wright Robinson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Warehouse, Inc., n. 9 (Minn. 1982), both of which were cited in Yoeun.
James M. Johnson v. Princeton Public Utilities Commission, and third party v. Hydrocon, Inc., Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James M. Johnson v. Princeton Public Utilities Commission, and third party v. Hydrocon, Inc., Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Warehouse, Inc., (stating that jury “instructions [become] the law of the case”).
Sysdyne Corporation v. Brian Rousslang 860 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 2015
Sysdyne Corporation v. Brian Rousslang 860 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 2015
Gieseke v. IDCA, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 2014
Gieseke v. IDCA, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 2014
Warehouse, Inc., (identifying five elements of the claim for wrongful interference with a contract), we have not done so for claims of tortious interference with prospective eco- nomic advantage.
Krueger v. Zeman Construction Co. 781 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 2010
Krueger v. Zeman Construction Co. 781 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 2010
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 731 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 731 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Warehouse, Inc., (recognizing wrongful interference with contractual relations as tort claim); see also W. Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 111, at 771, § 129, at 978-89 (5th ed.1984) (discussing tort of defamation and evolution of tort of interference with contractual relations).
Turnage v. State 708 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2006
Turnage v. State 708 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2006
In Furlev Sales & Associates v. North American Automotive Warehouse, Inc., , 27 n. 9 (Minn.1982), this court noted, There are seven foundational elements that must be established before a tape recording can be admitted: (1) a showing that the recording device was capable of taking testimony; (2) a showing that the operator of the device was competent; (3) establishment of the authenticity an
Independent School District No. 404 v. Castor 670 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Independent School District No. 404 v. Castor 670 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Warehouse, Inc., -29 (Minn.1982).
Metge v. Central Neighborhood Improvement Ass'n 649 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Metge v. Central Neighborhood Improvement Ass'n 649 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Bebo v. Delander 632 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Bebo v. Delander 632 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Harman v. Heartland Food Company 614 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Harman v. Heartland Food Company 614 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
v. North American Automotive Warehouse, Inc., ).
In Re the Welfare of S.A.M. 570 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In Re the Welfare of S.A.M. 570 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Automotive Warehouse, Inc., , 27 n. 9 (Minn.1982), is required for authentication.
Glass Service Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 530 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Glass Service Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 530 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Automotive Warehouse, Inc., (setting forth elements of claim for tortious interference with contract, including the existence of a contract).
Kjesbo v. Ricks 517 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1994
Kjesbo v. Ricks 517 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1994
A cause of action for wrongful interference with a contractual relationship requires: “(1) the existence of a contract; (2) the alleged wrongdoer’s knowledge of the contract; (3) intentional procurement of its breach; (4) without justification; and (5) damages.” Furlev Sales and Assoc., Inc. v. North American Automotive Warehouse, Inc.
Beck v. American Sharecom, Inc. 514 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Beck v. American Sharecom, Inc. 514 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Automotive Warehouse, see Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766 (1979) (defendant liable for intentionally inducing third party not to perform contract).
Mertes v. Estate of King 501 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Mertes v. Estate of King 501 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Warehouse, (if jury instructions are not objected to at trial or in post-trial motions, they become “law of the ease”).
Rulli v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 479 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Rulli v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 479 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Automotive Warehouse, Inc.
Schumacher v. Ihrke 469 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Schumacher v. Ihrke 469 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Nordling v. Northern States Power Co. 465 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Nordling v. Northern States Power Co. 465 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Matter of Gonzalez 456 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Matter of Gonzalez 456 N.W.2d 724 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
(citing Stephenson v. Plastics Corp. of America, 276 Minn. 400, 416 , ).
Andersen v. Andersen 376 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 1985