Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Dimond v. Manheim, 63 N.W. 495.

83 citing documents.

Patrick M. Figgins v. Noah Wilcox 879 N.W.2d 653 Minn. 2016
Patrick M. Figgins v. Noah Wilcox 879 N.W.2d 653 Minn. 2016
908, 909 (1892) (“The statute of frauds has not abrogated the doctrine of estoppel in pais as applied to purchases of real estate.”); Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178, 181, 63 N.W.
EEP Workers' Compensation Fund v. Fun & Sun, Inc. 794 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
EEP Workers' Compensation Fund v. Fun & Sun, Inc. 794 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Ass’n, Inc., (emphasis omitted) (quoting Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178, 182 , 63 N.W.
Pollard v. Southdale Gardens of Edina Condominium Ass'n 698 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Pollard v. Southdale Gardens of Edina Condominium Ass'n 698 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178, 182 , 63 N.W.
Thorson v. Rice County District One Hospital 437 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1989
Thorson v. Rice County District One Hospital 437 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1989
See, e.g., Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178, 182 , 63 N.W.
Renneke v. Shandorf 371 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Renneke v. Shandorf 371 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178, 181 , 63 N.W.
STRUCTURAL PLASTICS CORPORATION v. Walsh 161 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1968
STRUCTURAL PLASTICS CORPORATION v. Walsh 161 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1968
The doctrine of equitable estoppel, which was originally expressed by this court in Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , , was condensed in the more recent decision of Village of Wells v. Layne-Minnesota Co. 240 Minn. 132, 141 , 60 N. W. (2d) 621, 627 , in the following statement: “Equitable estoppel arises from the conduct of a party.
Eliason v. Production Credit Association of Aitkin 106 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1960
Poksyla v. Sundholm 106 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1960
Poksyla v. Sundholm 106 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1960
The doctrine of equitable estoppel is probably as well stated in Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178, 181 , , as anywhere.
Eliason v. Production Credit Association of Aitkin 106 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1960
15 See, Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178, 181 , .
Browning v. Browning 76 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1956
Browning v. Browning 76 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1956
Without going into estoppel, which may well apply here, one quotation is enlightening from Mr. Justice Mitchell of this court in Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178, 182 , , a case involving an invalid foreclosure proceeding in which the mortgagor after 20 years was held to be estopped to assert the invalidity: “* * * First.
Village of Wells v. Layne-Minnesota Co. 60 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1953
Village of Wells v. Layne-Minnesota Co. 60 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1953
8 Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , ; Macomber v. Kinney, 114 Minn. 146 , , ; Nell v. Dayton, 43 Minn. 242 , ; St.
May v. Ackerman 51 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 1951
May v. Ackerman 51 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 1951
endants could prevail would be equitable estoppel; that is, that plaintiffs or their agent, Kelley, had been guilty of negligence in placing the satisfaction on record, and that some third party or parties had changed their condition *281 in reliance on the record, — as, for example, buying the land, and parting with a valuable consideration therefor.” Speaking for the court in Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178, 181 , , Mr. Justice Mitchell said: “The equitable doctrine of estoppel by conduct, whi
Board of Education of City of Minneapolis v. Sand 34 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1948
Board of Education of City of Minneapolis v. Sand 34 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1948
See, Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , ; 31 C. J. S., Estoppel, § 59.
Albachten v. Bradley 3 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1942
Albachten v. Bradley 3 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1942
Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , .
Union Public Service Co. v. Village of Minneota 2 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1942
Union Public Service Co. v. Village of Minneota 2 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1942
Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 81 Minn. 140 , , , 53 L. R. A. 175 (on reargument); Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , .
State v. Soltau 2 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 1942
Ham v. Wheaton, 61 Minn. 212 , .
Froslee v. Sonju 297 N.W. 1 Minn. 1941
Froslee v. Sonju 297 N.W. 1 Minn. 1941
The general rules pertaining to estoppel have been expressed by this court in an opinion written by Mr. Justice Mitchell in Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , .
Clover v. Peterson 281 N.W. 275 Minn. 1938
In Re Estate of Peterson 281 N.W. 275 Minn. 1938
In Re Estate of Peterson 281 N.W. 275 Minn. 1938
(2 ed. Supp.) § 3185; Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , 63 N.W.
Clover v. Peterson 281 N.W. 275 Minn. 1938
(2 ed. & Supp.) § 3185; Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , ; Schaefer v. Nylin, 162 Minn. 170 , ; LePak v. Hedberg, 170 Minn. 495 , .
Prudential Co. v. City of Minneapolis 277 N.W. 351 Minn. 1938
Prudential Co. v. City of Minneapolis 277 N.W. 351 Minn. 1938
Therefore Nell v. Dayton, 43 Minn. 242 , ; Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , , cited by plaintiff, are not applicable.
Leighton v. Bancamerica-Blair Corp. 256 N.W. 848 Minn. 1934
Leighton v. Bancamerica-Blair Corp. 256 N.W. 848 Minn. 1934
Macomber v. Kinney, 114 Minn. 146, 154 , , ; Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178, 182 , .
Johnson v. Christlieb 225 N.W. 927 Minn. 1929
Johnson v. Christlieb 225 N.W. 927 Minn. 1929
Coleman v. Pearce, 26 Minn. 123 , ; Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , ; Theobald v. Hopkins, 93 Minn. 253 , ; Macomber v. Kinney, 114 Minn. 146 , , 130 *
Thompson Lumber Co. v. Gruesner 224 N.W. 849 Minn. 1929
Thompson Lumber Co. v. Gruesner 224 N.W. 849 Minn. 1929
As to estoppel, see Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , .
Tremont v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. 223 N.W. 137 Minn. 1929
Riethmuller v. Burton 222 N.W. 929 Minn. 1929
Riethmuller v. Burton 222 N.W. 929 Minn. 1929
Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , ; Macomber v. Kinney, 114 Minn. 146 , , 130 * Friend v. Friend, 158 Minn. 31 , ; Schaefer v. Nylin, 162 Minn. 170 , .
Belt Line Brick Co. v. Standard Home Building Co. 213 N.W. 41 Minn. 1927
Belt Line Brick Co. v. Standard Home Building Co. 213 N.W. 41 Minn. 1927
McCarthy v. Groff, 48 Minn. 325 , ; Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , ; Minneapolis Trust Co. v. G. N. Ry.
Le Pak v. Hedberg 213 N.W. 40 Minn. 1927
Le Pak v. Hedberg 213 N.W. 40 Minn. 1927
21 C. J. 1202, § 205; Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , ; Schaefer v. Nylin, 162 Minn. 170 , .