Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Faimon v. Winona State University, 540 N.W.2d 879.

22 citing documents.

Thomas Brule Trucking, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
at 399 (affirming summary judgment on promissory-estoppel claim because there was no evidence that plaintiff’s reliance on being offered a contract was reasonable when “despite any assurances that [plaintiff] may have received, he understood that the contract might be awarded to someone else”); (concluding that plaintiff’s reliance on employer’s promise that her job would be available to her for an additional year was not reasonable because she understood that the employer had the right to hire
Han Zhong v. Nicholas Dudero, Stieg Strand Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Han Zhong v. Nicholas Dudero, Stieg Strand Minn. Ct. App. 2026
ble jury could determine that Strand pushed for reliance, and that Zhong reasonably relied on this promise.6 On appeal from summary judgment on a promissory estoppel claim, we must determine whether: “(1) the [district] court misapplied the promissory estoppel doctrine or (2) the [district] court ignored issues of material fact raised by [the] appellant.” rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
James R. Pavelka, Jr., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Numerous considerations enter into a judicial determination of injustice, including the reasonableness of a promisee ’s reliance and a weighing of public policies in favor of both enforcing bargains and preventing unjust enrichment .” Faimon v. Winona State Univ ., , rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
The Townhomes of Raspberry Ridge Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Co ., ; (“The Minnesota Supreme Court has identifie d three prongs of the doctrine: promise, reliance and injustice.”) .
In re the Trust of Donald Roy Scheid and June Vivian Scheid, Joint Revocable Trust. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Todd Anderson v. Patricia Lloyd Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Todd Anderson v. Patricia Lloyd Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that university’s announcement, ‘“If a tenure track position should be approved, it would not be before 1994–95,’ [wa]s a clear and definite commitment” that “trigger[ed] promissory estoppel analysis of its enforcement”), review denied (Minn. Feb.
KBW Associates, Inc. v. W.L. Hall Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
KBW Associates, Inc. v. W.L. Hall Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Feb.
Gurvin Femrite v. City of Lowry Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Gurvin Femrite v. City of Lowry Minn. Ct. App. 2014
n.2 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Meriwether Minnesota Land & Timber, LLC v. State 818 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Meriwether Minnesota Land & Timber, LLC v. State 818 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
The promise must be such that it “might reasonably induce the promisee’s action or inaction.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
Javinsky v. Commissioner of Administration 725 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Javinsky v. Commissioner of Administration 725 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
review denied (Minn. Feb.
Greuling v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. 690 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Greuling v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. 690 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
review denied (Minn. Feb.
Norman v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Chisholm 681 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Norman v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Chisholm 681 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
review denied (Minn. 9 Feb.
Bryson v. Pillsbury Co. 573 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Bryson v. Pillsbury Co. 573 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
*722 Further, review denied (Minn. Feb.