Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wessin v. Archives Corp., 592 N.W.2d 460.

38 citing documents.

Cyrenus Rubald, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
To determine whether a claim is direct or derivative, a court must determine “whether the complained-of injury was an injury to the shareholder directly, or to the corporation.”
Serene E. Warren, as beneficiary of the 2011 Arizona NG Trust 102, 8008 Meadow Trust 102, 2011 Lafayette … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
The supreme court has outlined the contours of derivative claims, which belong to the corporation, and direct claims, which belong to an individual shareholder.15 See, (“Where the injury is to the corporation, and only indirectly harms the shareholder, the claim must be pursued as a derivative claim.”).
Arianna Anderson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(noting dismissal without prejudice on a rule 12 motion “may be preferable to a dismissal with prejudice where the dismissal is based on failure to follow pleading requirements”).
Mark Weber, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(noting that claim for misappropriation of corporate assets is a direct claim of the corporation).
Anthony, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“Where the injury is to the corporation, and only indirectly harms the shareholder, the claim must be pursued as a derivative claim.”).
Anthony Novak, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A shareholder may “sue in a representative capacity for the benefit of the corporation, and not for damages to him individually.” (quotation omitted).
Patrick Wandersee, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Wessin v. Archives Corp. , (“[T]he law favors cases being decided on their true merits, and thus a dismissal without prejudice may be preferable to a dismissal with prejudice where the dismissal is based on failure to follow pleading requirements.” (quotation omitted)).
William M. Ross, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Daniel Ashbach, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Minnesota has long adhered to the general principle that an individual shareholder may not directly assert a cause of acti on that belongs to the corporation.” 8 Wessin v. Archives Corp.
Kathryn Ward Blum, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
To determine whether a claim is direct or derivative, a court must determine “whether the complained -of injury was an injury to the sharehol der directly, or to the corporation.”
Wayne P. Steffens, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Wessin v. Archives Corp. , d 460, 467 ( Minn. 1999).
Donald Sealock, derivatively on behalf of St. Michael Mall, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“W hen a shareholder asserts a cause of action belonging to the corporation, the shareholder must seek redress in a derivative action on behalf of the corporation rather than in a di rect action by the individual shareholder.”
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
Blum v. Thompson 901 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Blum v. Thompson 901 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
To determine whether a claim is direct or derivative, a court must determine “whether the complained-of injury was an injury to the shareholder directly, or to the corporation.”
Greenpond South, LLC v. General Electric Capital Corp. 886 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Greenpond South, LLC v. General Electric Capital Corp. 886 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Within the context of shareholder litigation, Minnesota courts, in determining whether a shareholder’s claim is direct or derivative, have focused the inquiry to “whether the complained-of injury was an injury to the shareholder directly, or to the corporation.”
Linda �RandeeŽ Wines v. Jeff Wines Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Linda �RandeeŽ Wines v. Jeff Wines Minn. Ct. App. 2016
rev’d 4 on other grounds
In re Medtronic, Inc. Shareholder Litigation. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re Medtronic, Inc. Shareholder Litigation. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Metropolitan Sheet Metal Journeyman & Apprentice Training Trust Fund v. County of Ramsey 832 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2013
Metropolitan Sheet Metal Journeyman & Apprentice Training Trust Fund v. County of Ramsey 832 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2013
See, e.g., Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC, (analyzing whether the district court abused its discretion when it denied a motion to amend a complaint after summary judgment was granted); -68 (Minn.1999) (analyzing whether the district court abused its discretion when it denied a motion to amend a complaint after judgment was granted on the pleadings).
Blohm v. Kelly 765 N.W.2d 147 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Blohm v. Kelly 765 N.W.2d 147 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In determining whether a claim is direct or derivative, the central inquiry is “whether the complained-of injury was an injury to the shareholder directly, or to the corporation.”
Donnelly Bros. Construction Co. v. State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Co. 759 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Donnelly Bros. Construction Co. v. State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Co. 759 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“The decision to allow a party to amend its complaint after responsive pleading has been made lies within the sound discretion of the [district] court.” (citation omitted).
Stead-Bowers v. Langley 636 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Stead-Bowers v. Langley 636 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
“The decision to allow a party to amend its complaint after responsive pleading has been made lies within the sound discretion of the [district] court.” (citation omitted).
Gunderson v. Harrington 632 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2001
Gunderson v. Harrington 632 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2001
for the proposition that a closely held corporation must be treated the same as all other corporations under Minnesota statutes for purposes of the WCA.
Stocke v. Berryman 632 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Stocke v. Berryman 632 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Berreman v. West Publishing Co. 615 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Distinguished 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
Smith v. Woodwind Homes, Inc. 605 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Smith v. Woodwind Homes, Inc. 605 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
“The decision to allow a party to amend its complaint after responsive pleading has been made lies within the sound discretion of the [district] court.” (citation omitted).