Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hanks v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 493 N.W.2d 302.

29 citing documents.

1648 Properties, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
v. Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co., d 233, 236 (Minn. 2018) (discussing enforceability of indefinite contracts as legal issue); Hanks v. Hubbard Broad., Inc., (noting that whether extra-contract damages are recoverable is legal issue), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
FKS Enterprises, Inc., et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Hanks v. Hubbard Broad., Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
Richard Adams, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Hanks v. Hubbard Broad., Inc., (emphasis added) (citations omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.
The Bank of New York Mellon, for the certificateholders of CWALT, Inc. Alternative Loan Trust 2005-6CB, Mortgage Pass-through … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Bank of New York Mellon, for the certificateholders of CWALT, Inc. Alternative Loan Trust 2005-6CB, Mortgage Pass-through … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An alleged breach of contract may not support a tort claim when the alleged “breach of duty is indistinguishable from the breach of contract.” Hanks v. Hubbard Broad., Inc., review denied (Minn. Feb.
Lee D. Weiss, Weiss Capital Real Estate Group, LLC v. Private Capital, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Lee D. Weiss, Weiss Capital Real Estate Group, LLC v. Private Capital, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The test is whether a relationship would exist which would give rise to the legal duty without enforcement of the contract promise itself.” Hanks v. Hubbard Broad., Inc., d 302, 308 (Minn. App. 1992), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Julie Ann Holtegaard and David William Streng, Co-Trustees for the Next-of-Kin of Bruce Edward Streng v. Soo Line … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Julie Ann Holtegaard and David William Streng, Co-Trustees for the Next-of-Kin of Bruce Edward Streng v. Soo Line … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“If the jury’s special verdict finding can be reconciled on any theory, the verdict will not be disturbed.” Hanks v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., review denied (Minn. Feb.
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 796 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 796 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
19, 1998); Hanks v. Hubbard Broad., Inc., (agreeing that “a contract claim should not be converted into a tort claim”), review denied (Minn. Feb.
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. A.P.I., Inc. 738 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. A.P.I., Inc. 738 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Hanks v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., review denied (Minn. Feb.
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Neises 598 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Neises 598 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Respondents contend that the issue involves review of the juiy's special verdict and cite Hanks v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., (stating that "answers to special verdict questions will not be set aside unless they are perverse and palpably contrary to the evidence”), review denied (Minn. Feb.
County of Stearns v. Voller 584 N.W.2d 800 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
County of Stearns v. Voller 584 N.W.2d 800 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Hanks v. Hubbard Broad., Inc., review denied (Minn. Feb.
Jennie-O Foods, Inc. v. Safe-Glo Products Corp. 582 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Jennie-O Foods, Inc. v. Safe-Glo Products Corp. 582 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Hanks v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., (citations omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Cherne Contracting Corp. v. Wausau Insurance Companies 572 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Cherne Contracting Corp. v. Wausau Insurance Companies 572 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Accord, Hanks v. Hubbard Broad., Inc., (stating that test for independent tort is “whether a relationship would exist which would give rise to the legal duty without enforcement of the contract promise itself’), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Stowell v. Cloquet Co-Op Credit Union 542 N.W.2d 663 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Stowell v. Cloquet Co-Op Credit Union 542 N.W.2d 663 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
“If the jury’s special verdict finding can be reconciled on any theory, the verdict will not be disturbed.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
Hernandez Ex Rel. Hernandez v. Renville Public School District No. 654 542 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Hernandez Ex Rel. Hernandez v. Renville Public School District No. 654 542 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
A reviewing court will not set aside a jury’s answers to special verdict questions unless the answers are “perverse and palpably contrary to the evidence.” (citations omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Lundman v. McKown 530 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Lundman v. McKown 530 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Hanks v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., (citations omitted), pet.
BD. OF REGENTS OF U OF M v. Reid 522 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
BD. OF REGENTS OF U OF M v. Reid 522 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Cf. Hanks v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., -10 (Minn.App.1992) (whether elements of fraudulent inducement to begin employment claim have been met is usually fact question), pet.