Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Schumacher v. Ihrke, 469 N.W.2d 329.

41 citing documents.

McLaughlin’s Detroit Lakes, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
of a contract.” (quotation omitted).
First & First, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company v. Chadco of Duluth, LLC, a Minnesota ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
First & First, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company v. Chadco of Duluth, LLC, a Minnesota ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(reasoning that in a dispute regarding an interest in land, monetary damages are presumed to be inadequate); (holding that the district court acted within its discretion in awarding specific performance even where other remedies would be adequate).
Roer v. Dunham 682 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Roer v. Dunham 682 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
County of Washington v. Johnson 568 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
County of Washington v. Johnson 568 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Pine Valley Meats, Inc. v. Canal Capital Corp. 566 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Pine Valley Meats, Inc. v. Canal Capital Corp. 566 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
“If real property is involved, specific performance is a proper remedy, even if the other remedies would be adequate.”
Lenz v. Depositors Insurance Co. 561 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Lenz v. Depositors Insurance Co. 561 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
County of Dakota (CP 46-06) v. Lakeville 559 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
County of Dakota (CP 46-06) v. Lakeville 559 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
2600 University Inn, LLC v. City of Minneapolis 556 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
2600 University Inn, LLC v. City of Minneapolis 556 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Ellenberger 543 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Ellenberger 543 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Allied Mutual Insurance Co. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 536 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Allied Mutual Insurance Co. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 536 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
27, 1990); (statutory interpretation is question of law subject to de novo review).
Johnson v. Gray 533 N.W.2d 57 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Johnson v. Gray 533 N.W.2d 57 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Bashaw 531 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Bashaw 531 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
County of Ramsey v. Wilson 526 N.W.2d 384 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
County of Ramsey v. Wilson 526 N.W.2d 384 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Eid v. Hodson 521 N.W.2d 862 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Eid v. Hodson 521 N.W.2d 862 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Zawels v. Edutronics, Inc. 520 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Zawels v. Edutronics, Inc. 520 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Kjesbo v. Ricks 517 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1994
Kjesbo v. Ricks 517 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1994
the court of appeals held that use of a conduit deed to evade the statutory restrictions on exercise of the right of first refusal, while the conduit might be in technical compliance with the statute, nevertheless, this arrangement could not be used to justify interference with the contractual rights
Howe v. City of St. Cloud 515 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Howe v. City of St. Cloud 515 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Wetsch 511 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Wetsch 511 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Kjesbo v. Ricks 506 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Kjesbo v. Ricks 506 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Sanborn v. Sanborn 503 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Sanborn v. Sanborn 503 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
McDonough v. City of Rosemount 503 N.W.2d 493 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
McDonough v. City of Rosemount 503 N.W.2d 493 Minn. Ct. App. 1993