Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Westgor v. Grimm, 318 N.W.2d 56.

36 citing documents.

Kathryn Ward Blum, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In the Matter of the Trust Created Under Agreement By and Between Eugene V. Stowell and Shirley Marie … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In discussing these concepts in the context of a corporation, the supreme court has stated that “[t]he essence of the test is whether or not under all the circumstances the transaction carries the earmarks of an arm’s length bargain.” (quoting Pepper v. Litton, 308 U.S. 295, 306, 60 S. Ct. 238, 245 (1939)).
Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC 893 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC 893 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ride Auto’s does not change this conclusion.
Reichel Investments, L.P. v. Craig A. Reichel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Reichel Investments, L.P. v. Craig A. Reichel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Schumacher v. Schumacher 627 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Schumacher v. Schumacher 627 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
P. 9.02; see also, -15 (Minn.App.1988).
Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church of Hastings v. Hope Lutheran Church of Hastings 626 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church of Hastings v. Hope Lutheran Church of Hastings 626 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Dixon v. Depositors Insurance Co. 619 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Dixon v. Depositors Insurance Co. 619 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Advanced Communication Design, Inc. v. Follett 615 N.W.2d 285 Minn. 2000
Advanced Communication Design, Inc. v. Follett 615 N.W.2d 285 Minn. 2000
Generally, only a majority or controlling shareholder owes a fiduciary duty to the corporation or its *294 other shareholders, (stating controlling shareholder has a fiduciary relationship with corporation); see also Priddy v. Edelman, 883 F.2d 438, 445 (6th Cir.1989) (holding that absent control of corporation, minority shareholders owed no fiduciary duty to other shareholders), but as appellants note, we have recognized the
C.J. Duffey Paper Co. v. Reger 588 N.W.2d 519 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
C.J. Duffey Paper Co. v. Reger 588 N.W.2d 519 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Berke v. Resolution Trust Corp. 483 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Berke v. Resolution Trust Corp. 483 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
PJ Acquisition Corp. v. Skoglund 453 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1990
PJ Acquisition Corp. v. Skoglund 453 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1990
See, e.g., Miller v. Miller, 301 Minn. 207, 219-220 , -78 (1974); Seitz v. Michel, 148 Minn. 80, 87 , 181 N.W.
Stubblefield v. Gruenberg 426 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Stubblefield v. Gruenberg 426 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See, *915 (record could not sustain action for fraud as claim not stated with particularity); Seafirst, d at 899 (fraud element of damages not pleaded with sufficient particularity); (fraud element of false representation ind
Possis Corp. v. Continental MacHines, Inc. 425 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Possis Corp. v. Continental MacHines, Inc. 425 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
1 (Supp.1987), a conflict of interest exists if a transaction involves “a corporation and an organization in * * * which one or more of its directors are directors.”
National City Bank v. Coopers & Lybrand 409 N.W.2d 862 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
National City Bank v. Coopers & Lybrand 409 N.W.2d 862 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Honn v. Coin & Stamp Gallery, Inc. 407 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Honn v. Coin & Stamp Gallery, Inc. 407 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
( appeal after remand, ).
Marriage of Ulrich v. Ulrich 400 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Ulrich v. Ulrich 400 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Sifferle v. Micom Corp. 384 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Sifferle v. Micom Corp. 384 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(quoting Pepper v. Litton, 308 U.S. 295, 306 , 60 S.Ct.
Westgor v. Grimm 381 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Westgor v. Grimm 381 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Juster Steel v. Carlson Companies 366 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Juster Steel v. Carlson Companies 366 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 1985