Cited by

The supreme court also considered the with- or-without-prejudice issue in Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., but not by reviewing a district court’s decision on the issue.

Co., (quotation omitted).

Co., (quotation omitted).

Co., (quotation omitted).

Co., (quotation omitted).

Co., (quotation omitted).

Co., (quotation omitted).

Co., (“[T]he first element of promissory estoppel .

Co., d 732, 739 n.7 (Minn. 2000)).

Co., (describing promissory estoppel as an equitable doctrine that “implies a contract in law where none exists in fact” (quotation omitted)); (“[A]n action for unjust enrichment is not based on the contract, but is a quasi-contractual agreemen

Co., (quotation omitted).

Co., (explaining that, in deciding sufficiency of allegations, “it is immaterial whether or not the plaintiff can prove the facts alleged”).

Co., -40 (Minn. 2000) (quoting Franklin, d at 29).

Co., ; see also Meriwether Minn. Land & Timber, , rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

Co. , (holding that where the district court granted a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on the merits, the “complaint should be dismissed with prejudice”).

Co., -40 (Minn. 2000) (quoting Franklin, d at 29).

Co., (quotation omitted).

Co ., ; (“The Minnesota Supreme Court has identifie d three prongs of the doctrine: promise, reliance and injustice.”) .

Co. , d 732, 739 n.7 (Minn. 2000).