DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lukens v. Hazlett, 35 N.W. 265.

32 citing documents.

  • Utterberg v. Cameron 282 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 1979
  • Utterberg v. Cameron 282 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 1979
    Lukens v. Hazlett, 37 Minn. 441 , 35 N.W.
  • Seebold v. Eustermann 13 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1944
  • Seebold v. Eustermann 13 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1944
    Since Lukens v. Hazlett, 37 Minn. 441 , ; Halos v. Nachbar, 196 Minn. 387 , ; and Midland Loan Finance Co. v. Lorentz, 209 Minn. 278 , , are said to support plaintiff’s position, a brief review of what these cases hold seems desirable.
  • Fred G. Clark Co. v. E. C. Warner Co. 247 N.W. 225 Minn. 1933
  • Fred G. Clark Co. v. E. C. Warner Co. 247 N.W. 225 Minn. 1933
    (2 ed. & Supp.) § 9964; Rantala v. Haish, 132 Minn. 323 , ; Lukens v. Hazlett, 37 Minn. 441 , .
  • Pomplun v. Hudson 225 N.W. 115 Minn. 1929
  • Pomplun v. Hudson 225 N.W. 115 Minn. 1929
    In Lukens v. Hazlett, 37 Minn. 441, 443 , , it is said: “And there is no device or shift on the part of the lender to evade the statute under or behind which the law will not look in order to ascertain the real nature of the transaction.” See also Jackson v. Travis, 42 Minn. 438 , ; Barry v. Paranto, 97 Minn. 265
  • Hobart v. Michaud 219 N.W. 878 Minn. 1928
  • Hobart v. Michaud 219 N.W. 878 Minn. 1928
    Lukens v. Hazlett, 37 Minn. 441 , ; Hass v. Camp, 40 Minn. 329 , ; Phelps v. Montgomery, 60 Minn. 303 , ; Yellow Medicine Co. Bank v. Cook, 61 Minn. 452 , ; Saxe v. Womack, 64 Minn. 162 , ; Temple v. Davis, 115 Minn. 328 , .
  • State v. Minneapolis Cold Storage Co. 184 N.W. 854 Minn. 1921
  • State v. Minneapolis Cold Storage Co. 184 N.W. 854 Minn. 1921
    Lukens v. Hazlett, 37 Minn. 441 , ; State v. Seeling, 126 Minn. 386 , .
  • Patterson v. Wyman 170 N.W. 928 Minn. 1919
  • Patterson v. Wyman 170 N.W. 928 Minn. 1919
    Holmen y. Rugland, 46 Minn. 400 , ; Hagan v. Barnes, 92 Minn. 128, 133 , ; Lukens v. Hazlett, 37 Minn. 441 , .
  • Rantala v. Haish 156 N.W. 666 Minn. 1916
  • Rantala v. Haish 156 N.W. 666 Minn. 1916
    “There is no device or shift on the part of the lender to evade the statute under or behind which the law will not look in order to ascertain the real nature of the transaction.” Lukens v. Hazlett, 37 Minn. 441 , ; Dade v. Spalding, 52.
  • Elwell v. Lund 112 N.W. 1009 Minn. 1907
  • Elwell v. Lund 112 N.W. 1009 Minn. 1907
    Phelps v. Montgomery, 60 Minn. 303 , ; Lukens V. Hazlett, 37 Minn. 441 , .
  • Hagan v. Barnes 99 N.W. 415 Minn. 1904
  • Hagan v. Barnes 99 N.W. 415 Minn. 1904
    Lukens v. Hazlett, 37 Minn. 441 , ; Phelps v. Montgomery, 60 Minn. 303 , .
  • Commonwealth Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. Dakko 94 N.W. 1088 Minn. 1903
  • Commonwealth Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. Dakko 94 N.W. 1088 Minn. 1903
    Lukens v. Hazlett, 37 Minn. 441 , ; Larson v. Lombard Inv.
  • Babcock v. Murray 71 N.W. 913 Minn. 1897
  • Babcock v. Murray 71 N.W. 913 Minn. 1897
    If the evidence establishes this claim, and is such as to require such a finding, the note in question is usurious, for “there is no device or shift on the part of the lender to evade the statute under or behind which the law will not look in order to ascertain the real nature of the transaction.” Lukens v. Hazlett, 37 Minn. 441 , .
  • Phelps v. Montgomery 62 N.W. 260 Minn. 1895
  • Phelps v. Montgomery 62 N.W. 260 Minn. 1895
    Lukens v. Hazdett, 37 Minn. 441 , .
  • Lewis v. Willoughby 45 N.W. 439 Minn. 1890
  • Lewis v. Willoughby 45 N.W. 439 Minn. 1890
    Lukens v. Hazlett, 37 Minn. 441 , ( 35 N. W. Rep.
  • Jackson v. Travis 44 N.W. 316 Minn. 1890
  • Jackson v. Travis 44 N.W. 316 Minn. 1890
    Lukens v. Hazlett, 37 Minn. 441 , ( 35 N. W. Rep.
  • Hass v. Camp 42 N.W. 20 Minn. 1889
  • Hass v. Camp 42 N.W. 20 Minn. 1889
    Lukens v. Hazlett, 37 Minn. 441 , ( 35 N. W. Rep.