Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Busterud v. Farrington, 31 N.W. 360.

35 citing documents.

TCI Business Capital, Inc. v. Five Star American Die Casting, LLC, Brian T. Flynn 890 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
TCI Business Capital, Inc. v. Five Star American Die Casting, LLC, Brian T. Flynn 890 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The gravamen of the charge is that plaintiff has been deceived, to his hurt, not that the defendant has gained an advantage.” Busterud v. Farrington, 36 Minn. 320, 321-22 , 31 N.W.
Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co. Inc. 74 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1955
Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co. Inc. 74 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1955
Busterud v. Farrington, 36 Minn. 320 , ; Fisher v. Mellen, 103 Mass. 503 .
West v. Walker 231 N.W. 826 Minn. 1930
Barron G. Collier, Inc. v. Braunig & Sons Baking Co. 202 N.W. 442 Minn. 1925
Barron G. Collier, Inc. v. Braunig & Sons Baking Co. 202 N.W. 442 Minn. 1925
See Busterud v. Farrington, 36 Minn. 320 , ; Schlauderaff v. Wortham, 140 Minn. 25 , , *183 and Schmitt v. Ornes Esswein & Co. 149 Minn. 370 , .
Hansen v. Daniel Hayes Co. 188 N.W. 317 Minn. 1922
Hansen v. Daniel Hayes Co. 188 N.W. 317 Minn. 1922
Busterud v. Harrington, 36 Minn. 320 , .
Batchelder v. Stephenson 184 N.W. 852 Minn. 1921
Batchelder v. Stephenson 184 N.W. 852 Minn. 1921
The rule is recognized in Busterud v. Farrington, 36 Minn. 320 , .
Neelund v. Hansen 175 N.W. 538 Minn. 1919
Neelund v. Hansen 175 N.W. 538 Minn. 1919
•The case of Busterud v. Farrington, 36 Minn. 320 , 31 1ST.
Prigge v. Selz 158 N.W. 975 Minn. 1916
Prigge v. Selz 158 N.W. 975 Minn. 1916
He is held responsible generally for a false representation of value; the excuse of interest, and of the natural disposition of men *249 to overestimate their own property, not being allowed in this case.” Busterud v. Farrington, 36 Minn. 320 , .
Schlechter v. Felton 158 N.W. 813 Minn. 1916
Schlechter v. Felton 158 N.W. 813 Minn. 1916
In Busterud v. Farrington, 36 Minn. 320 , , Justice Berry stated the essentials of actionable fraud tersely as follows: “An action for deceit lies against one who makes a false representation of a material fact susceptible of knowledge, knowing it to be false, or of his own knowledge when he does not know whether it is true or false, with inten
Jacobson v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 156 N.W. 251 Minn. 1916
Jacobson v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 156 N.W. 251 Minn. 1916
628; Busterud v. Farrington, 36 Minn. 320 , .
Kempf v. Ranger 155 N.W. 1059 Minn. 1916
Kempf v. Ranger 155 N.W. 1059 Minn. 1916
It has been stated in general terms in decisions of this court that, in order io obtain relief on the ground of fraud, the plaintiff must use “reasonable diligence” (Morrill v. Madden, 35 Minn. 493 , ); that he must have been “acting with reasonable prudence” (Busterud v. Farringion, 36 Minn. 320 , ), and that he must be “reasonably free from negligence” (Minneapolis, St.
Virtue v. Creamery Package Manufacturing Co. 142 N.W. 930 Minn. 1913
Virtue v. Creamery Package Manufacturing Co. 142 N.W. 930 Minn. 1913
Busterud v. Farrington, 36 Minn. 320 , ; Shull v. Raymond, 23 Minn. 36 .
Johnson Service Co. v. Kruse 140 N.W. 118 Minn. 1913
Johnson Service Co. v. Kruse 140 N.W. 118 Minn. 1913
thus stated in Alden v. Wright, 47 Minn. 225, 227 , , 768: “The essential elements which constitute a cause of action for- *31 deceit are well stated in Busterud v. Barrington, 36 Minn. 320 ( ), and one is that the party induced to act has been damaged.
Schaeffer v. Rush 136 N.W. 754 Minn. 1912
Schaeffer v. Rush 136 N.W. 754 Minn. 1912
Pott v. Hanson, 109 Minn. 416 , ; Busterud v. Farrington, 36 Minn. 320 , .
Pott v. Hanson 124 N.W. 17 Minn. 1910
Pott v. Hanson 124 N.W. 17 Minn. 1910
496 ; Humphrey v. Merriam, 32 Minn. 197 , ; Busterud v. Farrington, 36 Minn. 320 , .
Anderson v. G. Heileman Brewing Co. 116 N.W. 655 Minn. 1908
Anderson v. G. Heileman Brewing Co. 116 N.W. 655 Minn. 1908
Busterud v. Farrington, 36 Minn. 320 , ; 20 Cyc.
Alden v. Wright 49 N.W. 767 Minn. 1891
Alden v. Wright 49 N.W. 767 Minn. 1891
The essential elements which constitute a cause of action for deceit are well stated in Busterud v. Farrington, 36 Minn. 320 , ( 31 N. W. Rep.
Clark v. Lovering 33 N.W. 776 Minn. 1887
Clark v. Lovering 33 N.W. 776 Minn. 1887
151 ; Wilder v. De Cou, 18 Minn. 421 , (470;) Merriam v. Pine City Lumber Co., 23 Minn. 314, 324 ; Busterud v. Farrington, 36 Minn. 320 , ( 31 N. W. Rep.