Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hommerding v. Peterson, 376 N.W.2d 456.

25 citing documents.

Han Zhong v. Nicholas Dudero, et al., Stieg Strand, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Han Zhong v. Nicholas Dudero, et al., Stieg Strand, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Joint Revocable Trust Agreement of John N. Charais and Sveindis Charais, … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Joint Revocable Trust Agreement of John N. Charais and Sveindis Charais, … 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 v. Doran University III, LLC 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, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Hammes West, LLC v. Dorothy Lyons, et al 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.