Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite PJ Acquisition Corp. v. Skoglund, 453 N.W.2d 1.

28 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Petitions of The Auto Club Group, a Michigan non-profit corporation, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Constructive trusts are “designed to correct abuse s of fiduciary relationships and force a conveyance to prevent unjust enrichment.” PJ Acquisition Corp. v. Skoglund
Joel Storland, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re Medtronic, Inc. Shareholder Litigation 900 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 2017
In re Medtronic, Inc. Shareholder Litigation 900 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 2017
ealth Grp., d at 556 (“[T]he very nature of a shareholder derivative suit is that the cause of action, although brought by a shareholder, belongs to the corporation.”); Janssen, d at 882 (stating that a “derivative action actually belongs to the corporation” and derivative suits “force liable parties to compensate the corporation for injuries”); -5 (Minn. 1990) (concluding that a shareholder’s claims were derivative because the injury was to the corporatiqn itself and any relief would go to the
Blum v. Thompson 901 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Blum v. Thompson 901 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A district court has authority to “grant a broad range of equitable remedies,” Berreman, d at 369 , and that remedial authority “is meant to be used,” (Yetka, J., on behalf of majority).
Reichel Investments, L.P. v. Craig A. Reichel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Reichel Investments, L.P. v. Craig A. Reichel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, (holding that a plaintiff lacked standing to pursue claim for dissipation of corporate assets by directors and officers when claim occurred prior to when plaintiff became a shareholder).
Blohm v. Kelly 765 N.W.2d 147 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Blohm v. Kelly 765 N.W.2d 147 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
1[] does expand the options of shareholders to bring actions seeking personal damages, as distinguished from derivative damages, the equitable remedy expanded does not replace the traditional derivative action.”
In Re UnitedHealth Group Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation 754 N.W.2d 544 Minn. 2008
In Re UnitedHealth Group Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation 754 N.W.2d 544 Minn. 2008
Commercial Associates, Inc. v. Work Connection, Inc. 712 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Commercial Associates, Inc. v. Work Connection, Inc. 712 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(good faith, loyalty, fidelity, and fair dealing); Perl II, d at 215 (disclosure).
Bond v. Commissioner of Revenue 691 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 2005
Bond v. Commissioner of Revenue 691 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 2005
Advanced Communication Design, Inc. v. Follett 615 N.W.2d 285 Minn. 2000
Advanced Communication Design, Inc. v. Follett 615 N.W.2d 285 Minn. 2000
See Fewell v. Tappan, 223 Minn. 483, 493-94 , (quoting Venier v. Forbes, 223 Minn. 69, 74 , ); (stating that Minn.Stat.
Berreman v. West Publishing Co. 615 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Berreman v. West Publishing Co. 615 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(change of statutory language from “persistently unfair” to “unfairly prejudicial” intended to “liberalize the remedies available”); -88 (Minn.App.1998) (recounting history and purpose of amendments to MBCA), rev’d on other grounds
Wessin v. Archives Corp. 592 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 1999
Wessin v. Archives Corp. 592 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 1999
Wessin v. Archives Corp. 581 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Wessin v. Archives Corp. 581 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(Yetka, J., dissenting, joined by Popovich and Wahl, JJ.)
Wenzel v. Mathies 542 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Wenzel v. Mathies 542 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Skoglund v. Brady 541 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Skoglund v. Brady 541 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1995