Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc., 526 N.W.2d 369.

30 citing documents.

James R. Pavelka, Jr., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Martens, d at 746, 746 n.27 (concluding that a “general framework for compensating and promoting employees” was not a “clear and definite promise” ); see also Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc., (holding that the statement “[g]ood employees are taken care of” was not a clear and definite promise).
In the Matter of the Petition of Northern States Power Company, d/b/a Xcel Energy, for Approval of Its … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Petition of Northern States Power Company, d/b/a Xcel Energy, for Approval of Its … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc.
James Jones v. Green Bay Packaging, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
James Jones v. Green Bay Packaging, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc.
Gurvin Femrite v. City of Lowry Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Gurvin Femrite v. City of Lowry Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc., d 369, 370-72 (Minn. 1995) (explaining that “[g]ood employees are taken care of” and “[y]ou are considered a good employee” were “not ‘clear and definite’ enough to support a claim for promissory estoppel”); see also Ott v. Target Corp., 153 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1077 (D. Minn. 2001) (stating that a promise to “aggressively
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bloomington Steel & Supply Co. 718 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 2006
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bloomington Steel & Supply Co. 718 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 2006
See Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc.
Lietz v. Northern States Power Co. 718 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 2006
Lietz v. Northern States Power Co. 718 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 2006
Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc.
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co. 666 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2003
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co. 666 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2003
In reviewing a summary judgment motion, we must “determine whether any issues of material fact exist and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law.” Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc., (citing Offerdahl v. Univ.
Pine Island Farmers Coop v. Erstad & Riemer, P.A. 649 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 2002
Pine Island Farmers Coop v. Erstad & Riemer, P.A. 649 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 2002
Our review of a summary judgment is limited to “whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc.
Gunderson v. Alliance of Computer Professionals, Inc. 628 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Gunderson v. Alliance of Computer Professionals, Inc. 628 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See, e.g., Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc., -72 (Minn.1995) (concluding that, even in the context of discussions about becoming a store manager, statement that “[gjood employees are taken care of’ was not sufficiently definite to establish a permanent-employment contract).
Olson v. Synergistic Technologies Business Systems, Inc. 628 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 2001
Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 616 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 2000
Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 616 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 2000
Haile v. Sutherland 598 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Haile v. Sutherland 598 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
2548, 2552 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc.
Paulos v. Johnson 597 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Paulos v. Johnson 597 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
2548, 2552 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc.
Simplex Supplies, Inc. v. Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. 586 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Donahue v. Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A. 586 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Simplex Supplies, Inc. v. Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. 586 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc.
Donahue v. Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A. 586 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
2548, 2552 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc.
Faimon v. Winona State University 540 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Faimon v. Winona State University 540 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1995