Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite SCI Minnesota Funeral Services, Inc. v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp., 795 N.W.2d 855.

102 citing documents.

Christopher C. Mogren v. Gregory Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See SCI Minn. Funeral Servs., (stating that a corporation has imputed knowledge of the actions of its agent when the agent acts within the scope of his authority); Walsh v. Selover, Bates & Co., 105 Minn. 282, 284-85, 117 N.W.
Mark Lanterman v. Michael Roman Afremov Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mark Lanterman v. Michael Roman Afremov Minn. Ct. App. 2016
SCI Minn. Funeral Servs.
Melrose Gates, LLC v. Chor Moua 875 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2016
Melrose Gates, LLC v. Chor Moua 875 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2016
1 In’ SCI Minnesota Funeral Services, we considered whether the parties to a stock sale transaction were entitled to reformation or rescission of the transaction based on mutual mistake.
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Scott Junker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Scott Junker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Junker also argues that this court should “disregard Klug because it is incorrect.” “Based on the principle of stare decisis, [Minnesota courts] are extremely reluctant to overrule our precedent and require a compelling reason to do so.” SCI Minn. Funeral Servs., (quotations and alteration omitted).
David Kroona v. Frank Dunbar, Padun GV, LLC 868 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
David Kroona v. Frank Dunbar, Padun GV, LLC 868 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See SCI Minn. Funeral Servs., -61 (Minn. 2011) (explaining that whether equitable relief is available is reviewed de novo and that if it is available, whether and how to award equitable relief is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).
John S. Drewitz v. Motorwerks, Inc. 867 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
John S. Drewitz v. Motorwerks, Inc. 867 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
When a creditor alleges a director’s self-payment was a 2 The supreme court has not deviated from a de novo standard of review of legal issues “simply because the claims at issue are for equitable relief.” SCI Minn. Funeral Servs.
In re the Marriage of: John Thomas Andrusko v. Genevieve Ann Andrusko Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: John Thomas Andrusko v. Genevieve Ann Andrusko Minn. Ct. App. 2015
v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp., (explaining that contracts require mutual assent, or a meeting of the minds, regarding the contract’s essential elements).
Melrose Gates, LLC v. Chor Moua Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Melrose Gates, LLC v. Chor Moua Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Judy Brown v. Judith M. Lee 859 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Judy Brown v. Judith M. Lee 859 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Reformation is an equitable remedy that is available when a party seeks to alter or amend language in a contract so that the contract reflects the parties’ true intent when they entered into the contract.” SCI Minn. Funeral Servs.
Gary A. Meiners v. Kruckow Companies, LLC, and third party v. Anthony R. Hammell, third party Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Gary A. Meiners v. Kruckow Companies, LLC, and third party v. Anthony R. Hammell, third party Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Reformation is an equitable remedy that is available when a party seeks to alter or amend language in a contract so that the contract reflects the parties’ true intent when they entered into the contract.” SCI Minn. Funeral Servs.
Medical Staff of Avera Marshall Regional Medical Center on its Own behalf and in its Representative Capacity for … 857 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2014
Medical Staff of Avera Marshall Regional Medical Center on its Own behalf and in its Representative Capacity for … 857 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2014
SCI Minn. Funeral Servs.
State of Minnesota v. Jermale Jermar Kling Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jermale Jermar Kling Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See SCI Minn. Funeral Servs., (“Mutual assent entails a meeting of the minds concerning [a contract’s] essential elements.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted)).
Gurvin Femrite v. City of Lowry Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Gurvin Femrite v. City of Lowry Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Formation of a contract requires the mutual assent of the parties to the contract’s “essential elements.” SCI Minn. Funeral Servs., (quotation omitted).
George E. Antrim, III, PLLC v. Samar Sabri a/k/a Samar M. Tomala a/k/a Samar Meri Tomala a/k/a Samar … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
George E. Antrim, III, PLLC v. Samar Sabri a/k/a Samar M. Tomala a/k/a Samar Meri Tomala a/k/a Samar … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp., d 855, 864 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).
Fieseler Masonry, Inc. v. City of Mabel, Exact Construction Company, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Fieseler Masonry, Inc. v. City of Mabel, Exact Construction Company, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See SCI 7 Minn. Funeral Servs., (“Whether mutual assent exists is tested under an objective standard.”).
North Star Mutual Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Jacob Quernemoen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2014
North Star Mutual Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Jacob Quernemoen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2014
SCI Minn. Funeral Servs., Jablonski v. Mutual Serv.
State ex rel. Swanson v. 3M Co. 845 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2014
State ex rel. Swanson v. 3M Co. 845 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2014
Co. v. Bloomington Steel & Supply Co., -96 (Minn.2006) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also SCI Minn. Funeral Servs., (declining to reform contract for mutual mistake because, even though the person who negotiated the contract for SCI was unaware of the existence of certain property, someone at SCI was aware of the property, and that knowledge was imputed to the entire company).
Minnesota Laborers Health & Welfare Fund v. Granite Re, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2014
Minnesota Laborers Health & Welfare Fund v. Granite Re, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2014
See SCI Minn. Funeral Servs., -61 (Minn.2011).
White v. City of Elk River 822 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
White v. City of Elk River 822 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc. 820 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2012
Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc. 820 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2012
Ram Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rohde 820 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
Ram Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rohde 820 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
We review the district court’s “legal decisions on summary judgment under a de novo standard,” SCI Minn. Funeral Servs., and “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted,”
League of Women Voters Minnesota v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2012
Followed League of Women Voters Minnesota v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2012
See, e.g., SCI Minn. Funeral Sens.
Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co. 817 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 2012
Anderson v. Christopherson 816 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2012
Graves v. Wayman 816 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Graves v. Wayman 816 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
See SCI Minn. Funeral Servs., (“[U]nder general corporate law principles, a corporation is charged with constructive knowledge ...
Gallaher v. Titler 812 N.W.2d 897 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Gallaher v. Titler 812 N.W.2d 897 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
SCI Minn. Funeral Servs., aff'd
United Prairie Bank-Mountain Lake v. Haugen Nutrition & Equipment, LLC 813 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2012