Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Toombs v. Daniels, 361 N.W.2d 801.

58 citing documents.

Casey Michael Dynan, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
This “six-year period begins to run when the facts constituting fraud were discovered or, by reasonable diligence, should have been discovered.” see also Blegen v. Monarch Life Ins.
Thomas Shimota, Appellant, B&T Automotive, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Michelle A. Krawczyk, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(explaining that fraudulent misrepresentations tolled statute of limitations until discovery of damages from breach of fiduciary duty).
Bay Side Recycling Company LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Therefore, “[t]he existence of a fiduciary relationship is a question of fact.” (fiduciary duties of trustees); see also, e.g., Murphy v. Country House, Inc. , d 507, 512 (Minn. 1976) (fiduciary duties of direct or shareholders to one another) .
Richard Pomije, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The six-year period begins to run when the facts constituting fraud were discovered or, by reasonable diligence, should have been discovered.”
Jill Hansen, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[I]f a fiduciary duty existed the fiduciary could be liable for fraudulent misrepresentation by silence even though there was 10 no evidence of fraudulent statements or intentional concealment.” (Mi nn.
Scott G. Erickson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The 6-year period begins to run when the facts constituting fraud were discovered or, by reasonable diligence, should have been discovered.”
CSM Equities, LLC v. Woodland Village Investments Limited Partnership Minn. Ct. App. 2016
CSM Equities, LLC v. Woodland Village Investments Limited Partnership Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The 6-year period begins to run when the facts constituting fraud were discovered or, by reasonable diligence, should have been discovered.”
Soderberg & Vail, LLC v. Meshbesher & Spence, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Soderberg & Vail, LLC v. Meshbesher & Spence, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 801, 809 (Minn. 1985) (deciding first whether fiduciary relationship existed, before finding 8 breach of fiduciary duty).
Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis 817 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2012
Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis 817 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2012
The facts constituting the fraud are deemed to have been discovered when they were actually discovered or, “by reasonable diligence, should have been discovered.”
Thomas B. Olson & Associates, P.A. v. Leffert, Jay & Polglaze, P.A. 756 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Thomas B. Olson & Associates, P.A. v. Leffert, Jay & Polglaze, P.A. 756 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Generally, a “fiduciary” is one who “enjoys a superior position in terms of knowledge and authority and in whom the other party places a high level of trust and confidence.” Carlson v. Sala Architects, Inc., -31 (Minn.App.2007) (), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Campbell 756 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Campbell 756 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Generally, such a relationship exists “when confidence is reposed on one side and there is resulting superiority and influence on the other; and the relation and duties involved in it need not be legal, but may be moral, social, domestic, or merely personal.” (quotation omitted); see also Carlson v. Sala Architects, Inc., -31 (Minn.App.2007) (“A fiduciary relationship is characterized by a ‘fiduciary’ who enjoys a superior position in terms of knowledge and authority and in whom the other party
Onvoy, Inc. v. Allete, Inc. 736 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 2007
Onvoy, Inc. v. Allete, Inc. 736 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 2007
When reviewing a declaratory judgment action, we apply the clearly erroneous standard to factual findings, and review the district court’s determinations of law de novo, see Frost-Benco Elec.
Carlson v. Sala Architects, Inc. 732 N.W.2d 324 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Carlson v. Sala Architects, Inc. 732 N.W.2d 324 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
809 *331 (Minn.1985); Vacinek v. First Nat’l Bank
Hauschildt v. Beckingham 686 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2004
Hauschildt v. Beckingham 686 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2004
In Re Ruth Easton Fund 680 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Re Ruth Easton Fund 680 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Re Foley Trust 671 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re Foley Trust 671 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re the Trust Created Under Agreement With Lane 660 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re the Trust Created Under Agreement With Lane 660 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Minnesota has long been a forerunner in creating “strong statutory policy favoring the inheritance rights of adoptees.”
Citizens for a Safe Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen's Club, Inc. 624 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Citizens for a Safe Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen's Club, Inc. 624 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
“The general rule is that ignorance of a cause of action which does not involve * * * trespass * * * does not prevent the running of the statute of limitations.”
Davies v. West Publishing Co. 622 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Davies v. West Publishing Co. 622 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
We find instructive the supreme court’s
Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson 583 N.W.2d 283 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson 583 N.W.2d 283 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
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
1(6) (1996) (providing that where party alleges fraud, six-year statute of *345 limitations does not accrue until discovery of faets constituting fraud); (six-year statute of limitations “begins to run when the facts constituting fraud were discovered or, by reasonable diligence, should have been discovered.
Burgmeier v. Farm Credit Bank of St. Paul 499 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Burgmeier v. Farm Credit Bank of St. Paul 499 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Matter of Trust Created by Hill 499 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Matter of Trust Created by Hill 499 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(if oral testimony regarding intent or construction of documentary evidence is presented, the clearly erroneous standard applies).
Appletree Square I Ltd. Partnership v. Investmark, Inc. 494 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Appletree Square I Ltd. Partnership v. Investmark, Inc. 494 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Coppa 494 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Coppa 494 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Waste Recovery Cooperative of Minnesota v. County of Hennepin 475 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Waste Recovery Cooperative of Minnesota v. County of Hennepin 475 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Cohen v. Appert 463 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Cohen v. Appert 463 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
May v. First National Bank of Grand Forks 427 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1988

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by