Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hommerding v. Peterson, 376 N.W.2d 456.
- Han Zhong v. Nicholas Dudero, Stieg Strand Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- Han Zhong v. Nicholas Dudero, Stieg Strand Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Joint Revocable Trust Agreement of John N. Charais and ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Joint Revocable Trust Agreement of John N. Charais and ...
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
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 agreement implied by law.”).
-
Regents of the University of Minnesota, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The 6 district court determined there was no legal or equitable obligation (in short, no “duty”) to disclose here, and made its summary-judgment ruling based solely on the duty issue.3 Minnesota courts have consistently adhered to the general rule that a “party to a transaction has no duty to disclose material facts to the other.”
- Tony�s Construction v. Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, St. Louis County Schools - ISD 2142 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
Tony�s Construction v. Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, St. Louis County Schools - ISD 2142
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that an action for unjust enrichment “is a quasi-contractual agreement implied by law”).
- Hammes West, LLC v. Dorothy Lyons Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
Hammes West, LLC v. Dorothy Lyons
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
7 Characterizing Anderson as an “exception” to the “general rule that a defaulting vendee under a contract for deed cannot claim unjust enrichment to recoup prior contract payments,”
- Sletto v. Wesley Construction, Inc. 733 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
- Sletto v. Wesley Construction, Inc. 733 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
- Southtown Plumbing, Inc. v. Har-Ned Lumber Co. 493 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
-
Southtown Plumbing, Inc. v. Har-Ned Lumber Co.
493 N.W.2d 137
Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Co. v. Dygert, 254 Minn. 224, 231 , (action for unjust enrichment is quasi-contractual agreement implied by law); Dusenka v. Dusenka, 221 Minn. 234, 238 , (quasi-contractual obligation is defined in equity and good conscience and is imposed by law to prevent unjust enrichment).
- Roseberg v. Steen 415 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Roseberg v. Steen 415 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Kissner v. Norton 412 N.W.2d 354 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Kissner v. Norton 412 N.W.2d 354 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Hollywood Dairy, Inc. v. Timmer 411 N.W.2d 258 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-
Hollywood Dairy, Inc. v. Timmer
411 N.W.2d 258
Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Gatz v. Frank M. Langenfeld and Sons Construction, Inc., (“Once a contract for deed is terminated any cause of action based on the contract terminates.”).
- Tran v. Estate of Ditzler 411 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-
Tran v. Estate of Ditzler
411 N.W.2d 6
Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(“appellants could not bring an action against the vendor for fraudulent misrepresentation pursuant to a contract for deed after termination of the contract”).
- Fort Dodd Partnership v. Trooien 392 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Fort Dodd Partnership v. Trooien 392 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Thomey v. Stewart 391 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-
Thomey v. Stewart
391 N.W.2d 533
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
the court held that the vendee could not bring an action for fraudulent misrepresentation on a contract for deed against the vendor after the contract had terminated.