Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Florenzano v. Olson, 387 N.W.2d 168.

90 citing documents.

Dakota Bank v. Eiesland 645 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Reinsurance Ass'n of Minnesota v. Timmer 641 N.W.2d 302 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Reinsurance Ass'n of Minnesota v. Timmer 641 N.W.2d 302 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
174 n. 3 (Minn.1986) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552 (Tentative Draft No. 12, 1966)); Bonhiver v. Graff, 311 Minn. 111, 122
Farmer's State Bank of Darwin v. Swisher 631 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 2001
Farmer's State Bank of Darwin v. Swisher 631 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 2001
1a; (stating “[without question, principles of comparative negligence would not apply to an intentional tort; we have never so applied them”).
Sutton v. Viking Oldsmobile Nissan, Inc. 611 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Sutton v. Viking Oldsmobile Nissan, Inc. 611 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Smith v. Brutger Companies 569 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1997
Smith v. Brutger Companies 569 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1997
as “an objective .standard of reasonable care or competence” applicable “when supplying information, either for the guidance of others in the course of a transaction in which one has a pecuniary interest, or in the course of one’s business, profession or employment.” On appeal to this court, Brutger
HB BY AND THROUGH CLARKE v. Whittemore 533 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
H.B. ex rel. Clarke v. Whittemore 533 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
HB BY AND THROUGH CLARKE v. Whittemore 533 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
H.B. ex rel. Clarke v. Whittemore 533 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
“Fraud is an intentional tort and scienter is an essential element.” see also M.H.
Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Dain Bosworth Inc. 531 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Dain Bosworth Inc. 531 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Tschimperle v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 529 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Tschimperle v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 529 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Williams v. Tweed 520 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Williams v. Tweed 520 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
I. Fraud and Misrepresentation Claim Williams argues that the district court erred in dismissing his claim of “fraud and misrepresentation.” The Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized that fraud is “ ‘a protean legal concept, assuming many shapes and forms.’ ” (quoting Jacobs v. Farmland Mut.
Schoenhals v. Mains 504 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Schoenhals v. Mains 504 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
174 n. 4 (Minn.1986) (setting out elements of fraud).
Church of the Nativity of Our Lord v. WatPro, Inc. 491 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1992
M.H. v. Caritas Family Services 488 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 1992
M.H. v. Caritas Family Services 488 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 1992
Halla Nursery, Inc. v. Baumann-Furrie & Co. 454 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1990
Halla Nursery, Inc. v. Baumann-Furrie & Co. 454 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1990
-76 (Minn.1986), -13 (Minn.1981).
L & H AIRCO, INC. v. Rapistan Corp. 446 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1989
L & H AIRCO, INC. v. Rapistan Corp. 446 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1989
Although we have recognized the tort of negligent misrepresentation, Bonhiver v. Graff, 311 Minn. Ill, 121-22, -99 (1976), 2 and have clarified that it is an unintentional tort that does not contemplate an intent to deceive on the part of the person making the misrepresentation, (Simonett, J., concurring specially), we have never before considered whether an attorney can be held liable to his client’s adversary for commission of the tort.
Davis v. Midwest Discount Securities, Inc. 439 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Davis v. Midwest Discount Securities, Inc. 439 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Schuler v. Meschke 435 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Schuler v. Meschke 435 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Eustis v. David Agency, Inc. 417 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Eustis v. David Agency, Inc. 417 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
the supreme court distinguished between an actionable misrepresentation based on fraud and negligence.
Davis v. Johnson 415 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Davis v. Johnson 415 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(fraudulent intent exists when misrepresenter knows or believes a matter is not as represented, or speaks positively and without qualification, but is either conscious of ignorance of the truth, realizes the information relied on is inadequate or undependable to support positive, unqualified represent
Hurley v. TCF Banking & Savings, F.A. 414 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hurley v. TCF Banking & Savings, F.A. 414 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bonhiver v. Graff, 311 Minn. 111, 122 , (citation omitted); see also
Prichard Bros., Inc. v. Grady Co. 407 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Prichard Bros., Inc. v. Grady Co. 407 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
2 Indeed, the trial court accurately stated in one of its post-trial memoranda that Grady’s conduct did not “rise to the level of intentionally deceitful *428 or dishonest conduct.” (bad faith is not equivalent to negligence and requires more of a fraudulent intent).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by