Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Evans v. Blesi, 345 N.W.2d 775.

84 citing documents.

Range Cornice & Roofing Company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
at any time upon its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders[,]” but “[d]uring the pendency of an appeal, such mistakes may be so corrected with leave of the appellate court” (emphasis added)); 781 (Minn. App. 1984) (explaining that “ an order that is .
In the Matter of: Anthony Michael Webster, II On Behalf of Minor Child(ren) v. Sefaint Atkins, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of: Anthony Michael Webster, II On Behalf of Minor Child(ren) v. Sefaint Atkins, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“taking cognizance of” the district court’s action attempting to reduce damages after appeal commenced “for the insight it affords” and ordering a reduction in damages), rev. denied (Minn. June 12, 1984); (affirming district court wh
The CastleRock Group, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Serene E. Warren, as beneficiary of the 2011 Arizona NG Trust 102, 8008 Meadow Trust 102, 2011 Lafayette … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In addition, Warren argues that the district court abused its discretion by declining to revive her breach-of -fiduciary-duty claim because she “added multiple allegations [to the SASC] regarding Mark and Ken’s bullying and harassing behavior that violated their fiduciary duties.” To support this contention, Warren cites only one case, rev. denied (Minn. June 12, 1984), but she does not provide any analysis of the case.
Kathryn Ward Blum, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Shareholders of a closely held corporation have a fiduciary duty to obser ve “the highest standard of integrity in their deali ngs with each other.” review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
Blum v. Thompson 901 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Blum v. Thompson 901 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Shareholders of a closely held corporation have a fiduciary duty to observe “the highest standard of integrity in their dealings with each other.” review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
Joy Folie v. Aging Joyfully, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Joy Folie v. Aging Joyfully, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Thus, under the common law, shareholders have “a fiduciary duty to deal openly, honestly and fairly with other shareholders.” review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
Gerald J. Hansen v. N'compass Solutions Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Gerald J. Hansen v. N'compass Solutions Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Caselaw also explains that shareholders in a closely held corporation have “a fiduciary duty to deal openly, honestly and fairly with other shareholders.” review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
Timothy E. Lewis v. Paul J. Borchert Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Timothy E. Lewis v. Paul J. Borchert Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(declining to remand for a de minimis technical error); (declining to remand and ordering a reduction in damages consistent with the district court’s attempted reduction after appeal had been taken and “taking cognizance of [the district court’s action in doing so] for the insight it affords”).
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
In a closely held corporation, shareholders have “a fiduciary duty to deal openly, honestly and fairly with other shareholders.” review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
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
20, 1992); (“[A] fiduciary duty [includes] dealing] openly, honestly and fairly with other shareholders”), review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
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
545, 546 (1928)); see Fewell v. Tappan, 223 Minn. 483, 494 , , *186 654 (1947); -81 (Minn.App.1984) (concluding that the use of surprise, bluster, and intimidation to persuade a minority shareholder to sell out violated the duty of good faith and fair dealing), review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church of Hastings v. Hope Lutheran Church of Hastings 626 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church of Hastings v. Hope Lutheran Church of Hastings 626 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
-80 (Minn.App.1984), review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
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
Advanced Communication Design, Inc. v. Follett 601 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Advanced Communication Design, Inc. v. Follett 601 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In support, they cite Evans v. Blesi (finding a fiduciary relationship between partners of a closely held corporation who had shared “equal salaries, management duties and benefits” for 22 years).
Wessin v. Archives Corp. 581 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Wessin v. Archives Corp. 581 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
Hurwitz v. Padden 581 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Hurwitz v. Padden 581 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Id.; see Minn. Stat. § 323.20 (1996) (outlining fiduciary responsibilities of partners); see also Evans v. Blesi (stating shareholders in closely held corporation have fiduciary relationship), review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
Wenzel v. Mathies 542 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Wenzel v. Mathies 542 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
20, 1992); review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
Miller Waste Mills, Inc. v. MacKay 520 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Miller Waste Mills, Inc. v. MacKay 520 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In re Adopt K.L.L. 515 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Matter of KLL 515 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In re Adopt K.L.L. 515 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
But in this case, we have considered the trial court’s ruling on the posttrial motions “for the insight it affords.” See Evans v. Blesi pet.
Matter of KLL 515 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Pedro v. Pedro 489 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Pedro v. Pedro 489 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Bradley v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. 471 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Bradley v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. 471 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
for rev. denied (Minn. July 12, 1989); *679 (Minn.App.1984) (reducing $500,000 punitive damages award to $250,000).
Pedro v. Pedro 463 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Pedro v. Pedro 463 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Schmidt v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, Inc. 460 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Schmidt v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, Inc. 460 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Although the post-appeal amended judgment is without effect, this court may take “cognizance of it for the insight it affords.” pet.
Warthan v. Midwest Consolidated Insurance Agencies, Inc. 450 N.W.2d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Warthan v. Midwest Consolidated Insurance Agencies, Inc. 450 N.W.2d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Town of Belle Prairie v. Kliber 448 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Town of Belle Prairie v. Kliber 448 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 1989