Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Pedro v. Pedro, 489 N.W.2d 798.

42 citing documents.

Anita M. Froderman, n/k/a Sydorowicz, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“In order for bias or prejudice to be disqualifying[,] it must stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from [their] participation in the case.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
Dr. Eric Steffen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A district court’s “findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
William M. Ross, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
25, 2017); review denied (Minn. Oct.
Joseph D. Roach, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Clearly erroneous means manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.
A20-0480 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Pedro v. Pedro , review denied (Minn. Oct.
Gerring Properties Inc., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The reasonable expectations of closely held corporation shareholders include “a job, salary, a significa nt place in management, and economic security for [the shareholder’s] family.” see also Gunderson v. All.
Kathryn Ward Blum, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The district court’s findings of fact “shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Daniel Call, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied 6 (Minn. Oct.
Jeffery D. Gordon, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Pedro v. Pedro , , review denied (Minn. Oct.
A18-0391 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Pedro v. Pedro , , 802 –03 (Minn. App. 1992) (Pedro II) (affirming because under “the unique facts” of the case the district court’s “award of future damages for lost wages is wholly consistent with the court’s broad equitable powers .
Blum v. Thompson 901 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Explained Blum v. Thompson 901 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Later, (Pedro II), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
the underlying principle that an adjudication on the merits of an issue is conclusive, and should not be relitigated, clearly applie[d]”); (determining that appellants could not raise issue of personal liability in second appeal when parties did not raise issue in first appeal), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Joy Folie v. Aging Joyfully, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Joy Folie v. Aging Joyfully, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A district court’s “findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous,” and when reviewing the district court’s findings, “this court is limited to deciding whether the findings are clearly erroneous.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Scott R. McKee, M. D. v. St. Paul Eye Clinic, P. A. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Scott R. McKee, M. D. v. St. Paul Eye Clinic, P. A. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The common-law fiduciary duty requires shareholders in a close corporation to deal “openly, honestly and fairly with other shareholders.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Gerald J. Hansen v. N'compass Solutions Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Gerald J. Hansen v. N'compass Solutions Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A district court’s “findings of fact ‘shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.’” (quoting Minn. R. Civ.
Samuel Deweese, (A13-2152), (A13-2160) v. Lakeview Clinic, Ltd., (A13-2152), (A13-2160). Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Samuel Deweese, (A13-2152), (A13-2160) v. Lakeview Clinic, Ltd., (A13-2152), (A13-2160). Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The law imposes upon the participants in a fiduciary relationship the “highest standards of integrity and good faith in their dealings with each other.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Robert Bonczek v. Donald Erickson, DDS, Mark Wilson, Periodontist, Mayo Clinic - Rochester, University of Minnesota - Minneapolis, … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Robert Bonczek v. Donald Erickson, DDS, Mark Wilson, Periodontist, Mayo Clinic - Rochester, University of Minnesota - Minneapolis, … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“In order for bias or prejudice to be disqualifying it must stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele 814 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele 814 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(quotation omitted); (“The relationship among shareholders in closely held corporations is analogous to that of partners.”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
U.S. Bank N. A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 802 N.W.2d 363 Minn. 2011
U.S. Bank N. A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 802 N.W.2d 363 Minn. 2011
Moreover, in Berre-man, the court of appeals did not undertake to define the scope of common law close corporation fiduciary duty, deciding only that majority shareholders have a duty to deal “openly, honestly, and fairly with other shareholders.” Berreman, d at 371 ().
Blohm v. Kelly 765 N.W.2d 147 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Blohm v. Kelly 765 N.W.2d 147 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Blohm argues that Kelly breached fiduciary duties imposed by the common law, review denied (Minn. Oct.
Drewitz v. Motorwerks, Inc. 728 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 2007
Drewitz v. Motorwerks, Inc. 728 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 2007
Cf. Pedro v. Pedro (Pedro II), 804 (Minn.App.1992), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
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
(Pedro II) (stating that the reasonable expectations of close-corporation shareholders include a job, a salary, and a significant place in management), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Berreman v. West Publishing Co. 615 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Berreman v. West Publishing Co. 615 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See Fewell v. Tappan, 223 Minn. 483, 494 , (Pedro II), review denied (Minn. Oct.
EEC Property Co. v. Kaplan 578 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
EEC Property Co. v. Kaplan 578 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Rothmeier v. Investment Advisers, Inc. 556 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Rothmeier v. Investment Advisers, Inc. 556 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
24, 1991), and Pedro v. Pedro (Pedro II), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Wenzel v. Mathies 542 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Wenzel v. Mathies 542 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(“The relationship among shareholders in closely held corporations is analogous to that of partners.”), review denied (Minn. Oct.