Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Anderson v. DeLisle, 352 N.W.2d 794.

44 citing documents.

Chad Monson, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Scott Lee Neiman, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Paul Herlache, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“In general, recovery for unjust enrichment is based upon what the person enriched has received rather than what the opposing party has lost.” Anderson 7 v. DeLisle, rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
Vilnis Neilands, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Nov.
In re the Marriage of: Thomas W. Krabbenhoft, petitioner, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Crow Wing Cooperative Power and Light Company, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Nov.
Hammes West, LLC v. Dorothy Lyons Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Hammes West, LLC v. Dorothy Lyons Minn. Ct. App. 2016
6 review denied (Minn. Nov.
Diversified Water Diversion, Inc. v. Hogenson Properties, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Diversified Water Diversion, Inc. v. Hogenson Properties, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(discussing illegal or unlawful enrichment); Schumacher, d at 729-30 (extending the doctrine of unjust enrichment to morally wrong acts); (recognizing that fraud may form the basis of an unjust-enrichment claim).
Langford Tool & Drill Co. v. The 401 Group, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Langford Tool & Drill Co. v. The 401 Group, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But in an unjust-enrichment case, damages are measured by “what the person allegedly enriched has received, not on what the opposing party has lost.” Georgopolis v. George, 237 Minn. 176, 185, d 137, 142 (1952); review denied (Minn. Nov.
County of Hennepin v. 1010 Metrodome Square, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
County of Hennepin v. 1010 Metrodome Square, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“An action for unjust enrichment may be based on failure of consideration, fraud, mistake, and situations where it would be morally wrong for one party to enrich himself at the expense of another.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
Mon-Ray, Inc. v. Granite Re, Inc. 677 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Mon-Ray, Inc. v. Granite Re, Inc. 677 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Unjust enrichment may be founded on failure of consideration, fraud, or mistake, or “situations where it would be morally wrong for one party to enrich himself at the expense of another.” ().
Schumacher v. Schumacher 627 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Schumacher v. Schumacher 627 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
and Loan Ass’n, 291 Minn. 68, 71 , (unjust enrichment shown where conduct was similar in nature to fraud); Southtown *730 Plumbing, Inc. v. Har-Ned Lumber Co., Inc., (unjust enrichment may be shown by circumstances that would make it unjust to permit retention); Park-Lake Car Wash, Inc. v. Spring
Custom Design Studio, a Division of L.B. Baron Properties, Inc. v. Chloe, Inc. 584 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Custom Design Studio, a Division of L.B. Baron Properties, Inc. v. Chloe, Inc. 584 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See, (vendor who contracted to retain improvements, after knowing that they had begun and that the vendees had financial problems, was unjustly enriched), review denied (Minn. Nov.
Midwest Sports Marketing, Inc. v. Hillerich & Bradsby of Canada, Ltd. 552 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Midwest Sports Marketing, Inc. v. Hillerich & Bradsby of Canada, Ltd. 552 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
( review denied (Minn. Nov.
ServiceMaster of St. Cloud v. GAB Business Services, Inc. 530 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
ServiceMaster of St. Cloud v. GAB Business Services, Inc. 530 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Southtown Plumbing, Inc. v. Har-Ned Lumber Co. 493 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Southtown Plumbing, Inc. v. Har-Ned Lumber Co. 493 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Holman v. CPT CORP. 457 N.W.2d 740 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Holman v. CPT CORP. 457 N.W.2d 740 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
An action for unjust enrichment may be founded upon failure of consideration, fraud, or mistake, or “situations where it would be morally wrong for one party to enrich himself at the expense of another.” (citations omitted).
Hesselgrave v. Harrison 435 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Hesselgrave v. Harrison 435 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
“An action for unjust enrichment may be based on failure of consideration, fraud, mistake, and situations where it would be morally wrong for one party to enrich himself at the expense of another.”
Timmer v. Gray 395 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Timmer v. Gray 395 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Park-Lake Car Wash, Inc. v. Springer 394 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Park-Lake Car Wash, Inc. v. Springer 394 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Unjust enrichment need not be based on fraud or mistake; such a remedy may also be based on “situations where it would be morally wrong for one party to enrich himself at the expense of another.”
Fort Dodd Partnership v. Trooien 392 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Fort Dodd Partnership v. Trooien 392 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Galante v. Oz, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Galante v. Oz, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
553 (1940) (plaintiff expended money and effort for own benefit); pet for rev. denied, (Minn. Nov.
Hommerding v. Peterson 376 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hommerding v. Peterson 376 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
754 , 24 L.Ed.2d 753 (1970)
Brakke v. Hilgers 374 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Brakke v. Hilgers 374 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Tourville v. Kowarsch 365 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Tourville v. Kowarsch 365 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1985