Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Logan v. Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A., 603 N.W.2d 659.

18 citing documents.

Capital Construction, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Under a general allegation of damages resulting from a breach of contract, a plaintiff may recover those damages that naturally and necessarily result from the alleged breach.” Logan v. Norwest Bank Minn., N.A.
Dale Zubke, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
When the plaintiff makes a general claim for damages, they may “recover those damages that naturally and necessarily result from the alleged breach.” Logan v. Norwest Bank Minn., N.A.
Daniel W Crandall, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Logan v. Norwest Bank Minn., N.A., (providing that damages are an essential element of a breach -of-contract claim); (providing that damages are an essential element of a negligence claim).
David Schindele, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Under a general allegation of damages resulting from a breach of contract, a plaintiff may recover those damages that naturally and necessarily result from the alleged breach.” Logan v. Norwest Bank Minn., N.A.
TestResources, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
As a general matter, the appropriate measure of damages for a breach of contract is the amount that “naturally and necessarily result[s] from the alleged breach.” Logan v. Norwest Bank Minn., N.A.
JanOne Inc., formerly known as Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A nonbreaching party “may recover those damages that naturally and necessarily result from the alleged breach.” Logan v. Norwest Bank Minn., N.A.
Capacity Wireless, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
To survive summary judgment regarding damages, a plaintiff need only show a “reasonable basis for approximating loss.” see also Logan v. Norwest Bank Minn., N.A., (stating that summary judgment is inappropriate when the facts “support a viable theory of damages that naturally and necessarily” result from the defendant’s breach of contract).
GGG, Incorporation, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[T]he existence and terms of a contract are questions for the fact finder,” Morrisette v. Harrison Int ’l. Co., but “[t]he construction and effect of a contract are questions of law subject to de novo review by this court.” Logan v. Norwest Bank Minn ., 19 (Minn. App. 1999) ().
Valley Paving, Inc. v. Stanley Consultants, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Valley Paving, Inc. v. Stanley Consultants, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Bank Minn., N.A., Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 344(a) (1981).
Roberts v. Brunswick Corp. 783 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Roberts v. Brunswick Corp. 783 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Peterson v. Johnson 720 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Peterson v. Johnson 720 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Jensen v. Duluth Area YMCA 688 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Jensen v. Duluth Area YMCA 688 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
See Logan v. Norwest Bank Minn., N.A.
Porch v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. 642 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Porch v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. 642 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 2002