Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Greuling v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., 690 N.W.2d 757.

27 citing documents.

Brett Cournoyer, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Justifiable reliance is typically a fact question for a jury, and only “becomes a question of law if there is no evidence supporting a contrary conclusion.” Greuling v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc.
Han Zhong v. Nicholas Dudero, Stieg Strand Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Han Zhong v. Nicholas Dudero, Stieg Strand Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Negligent misrepresentation For a negligent misrepresentation claim, justifiable reliance is typically a fact question for a jury, and only “becomes a question of law if there is no evidence supporting a contrary conclusion.” Greuling v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc.
John Donahue, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Promissory estoppel has three elements: (1) a clear and definite promise; (2) the promisor intended to induce reliance and such reliance occurred; and (3) the promise must be enforced to prevent injustice.” Greuling v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc.
Michelin Properties LLC, Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
While justifiable reliance is typically a fact question for a jury, it “becomes a question of law if there is no evidence supporting a 13 contrary conclusion.” Greuling v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc.
Dynamic Energy Solutions, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Inc. , 6 FK cites several nonprecedential federal decisions that, applying the laws of other states, reach a similar conclusion.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
10 doctrine and “an express cont ract covering the same subj ect matter will preclude the application of promissory estoppel.” Greuling v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc .
Robert Martin v. A�BULAE, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Robert Martin v. A�BULAE, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[A]n express contract covering the same subject matter will preclude the application of promissory estoppel.” Greuling v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc.
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
See, e.g., BankCherokee v. Insignia Dev., LLC, Greuling v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., -62 (Minn. App. 2005); see also St.
NJK Holding Corporation v. The Araz Group, Inc. 878 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
NJK Holding Corporation v. The Araz Group, Inc. 878 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We have determined that “claims on agreements falling under section 513.33 fail as a matter of law if the agreement is not in writing.” Greuling v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., –62 (Minn. App. 2005).
Arrow Southampton, LLC v. Jeremiah Akinnola Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Arrow Southampton, LLC v. Jeremiah Akinnola Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine that implies a contract in law where none exists in fact.” Greuling v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc.
Patrick M. Figgins v. Noah Wilcox, and Grand Rapids State Bank, defendant/counterclaimant and third party v. Patrick Figgins, … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Patrick M. Figgins v. Noah Wilcox, and Grand Rapids State Bank, defendant/counterclaimant and third party v. Patrick Figgins, … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Accordingly, “claims on agreements falling under section 513.33 fail as a matter of law if the agreement is not in writing.” Greuling v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., –62 (Minn. App. 2005).
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
“[A]n express contract covering the same subject matter will preclude the application of promissory estoppel.” Greuling v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc.
Fiduciary Foundation, LLC v. Brown 834 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Fiduciary Foundation, LLC v. Brown 834 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
.1988) (“A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted)); (declining to address “due process claim” because “Rubey did not raise [it] in the district court”); Greuling v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., (“We decline to address Greuling’s theory of equitable estoppel raised for the first time on appeal”).
Meriwether Minnesota Land & Timber, LLC v. State 818 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Meriwether Minnesota Land & Timber, LLC v. State 818 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Greuling v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc.
BankCHEROKEE v. INSIGNIA DEVELOPMENT, LLC 779 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
BankCHEROKEE v. INSIGNIA DEVELOPMENT, LLC 779 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
McIntosh County Bank v. Dorsey & Whitney, LLP 726 N.W.2d 108 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
McIntosh County Bank v. Dorsey & Whitney, LLP 726 N.W.2d 108 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Greuling v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.