Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Buckley v. Patterson, 39 N.W. 490.

30 citing documents.

Hilton v. Nelsen 283 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 1979
Hilton v. Nelsen 283 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 1979
Buckley v. Patterson, 39 Minn. 250 , 39 N.W.
Fenrick v. Olson 131 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 1964
Fenrick v. Olson 131 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 1964
Co. 40 Minn. 184 , ; Buckley v. Patterson, 39 Minn. 250 , ; Benson v. Markoe, 37 Minn. 30 , ; and that the negligence of a maker of an instrument may not be decisive against granting relief by its cancellation in equity.
Gethsemane Lutheran Church v. Zacho 104 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1960
Gethsemane Lutheran Church v. Zacho 104 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1960
6 Buckley v. Patterson, 39 Minn. 250 , ; 81 C. J. S., Specific Performance, § 163; Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 54.03.
Boulevard Plaza Corp. v. Campbell 94 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1959
Boulevard Plaza Corp. v. Campbell 94 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1959
2 Bredesen v. Nickolay, 147 Minn. 304 , ; Enkema v. McIntyre, 136 Minn. 293 , , 2 A. L. R. 411; Coates v. Cooper, 121 Minn. 11 , ; Selover v. Isle Harbor Land Co. 91 Minn. 451 , ; Abbott v. Moldestad, 74 Minn. 293 , , 73 A. S. R. 348; Buckley v. Patterson, 39 Minn. 250 , ; Austin v. Wacks, 30 Minn. 335 , .
Pike Rapids Power Co. v. Schwintek 223 N.W. 612 Minn. 1929
Pike Rapids Power Co. v. Schwintek 223 N.W. 612 Minn. 1929
(3 ed.) § 253; Buckley v. Patterson, 39 Minn. 250 , ; Rogers v. Odell, 36 Mich.
Hatcher v. Union Trust Co. of Maryland 219 N.W. 76 Minn. 1928
Hatcher v. Union Trust Co. of Maryland 219 N.W. 76 Minn. 1928
Benson v. Markoe, 37 Minn. 30 , , 5 A. S. R. 816; Buckley v. Patterson, 39 Minn. 250 , ; Thwing v. Hall & Ducey Lbr.
Olson v. Shephard 206 N.W. 711 Minn. 1926
Olson v. Shephard 206 N.W. 711 Minn. 1926
816; Buckley v. Patterson, 39 Minn. 250 , ; Thwing v. Hall & D. Lbr.
Peterson v. First National Bank of Ceylon 203 N.W. 53 Minn. 1925
Peterson v. First National Bank of Ceylon 203 N.W. 53 Minn. 1925
“Even a clearly established negligence may not of itself be sufficient ground for refusing relief, if it appears that the other party has not been prejudiced thereby.” Buckley v. Patterson, 39 Minn. 250 , .
Bredesen v. Nickolay 180 N.W. 547 Minn. 1920
Bredesen v. Nickolay 180 N.W. 547 Minn. 1920
Buckley v. Patterson, 39 Minn. 250 , .
Baker v. Polydisky 174 N.W. 526 Minn. 1919
Baker v. Polydisky 174 N.W. 526 Minn. 1919
Ct. 109, 32 L. ed. 500; McDermid v. McGregor, 21 Minn. 111, 116 ; Buckley v. Patterson, 39 Minn. 250 , ; Abbott v. Moldestad, 74 Minn. 293 , , 73 Am.
Enkema v. McIntyre 161 N.W. 587 Minn. 1917
Enkema v. McIntyre 161 N.W. 587 Minn. 1917
Buckley v. Patterson, 39 Minn. 250 , .
St. Nicholas Church v. Kropp 160 N.W. 500 Minn. 1916
St. Nicholas Church v. Kropp 160 N.W. 500 Minn. 1916
Buckley v. Patterson, 39 Minn. 250 , , should, here, inter-fer and cancel the bid of Kropp.
C. H. Young Co. v. Springer 129 N.W. 773 Minn. 1911
C. H. Young Co. v. Springer 129 N.W. 773 Minn. 1911
nt in equity and good *387 conscience to charge it with notice, before finally entering into a contract with Grant, it could well be held that its act in closing the contract, if plaintiff could then withdraw therefrom, or rectify the mistake, would amount to inequitable conduct on its part, within the rule extending relief to the mistaken party in a situation of that kinder Buckley v. Patterson, 39 Minn. 250 , ; Chelsea v. Smith, 74 N. J. Eq.
Hopkins v. Baremore 109 N.W. 831 Minn. 1906
Hopkins v. Baremore 109 N.W. 831 Minn. 1906
Buckley v. Patterson, 39 Minn. 250 , ; Mealey v. Finnegan, 46 Minn. 507 , .
Thwing v. Hall & Ducey Lumber Co. 41 N.W. 815 Minn. 1889
Thwing v. Hall & Ducey Lumber Co. 41 N.W. 815 Minn. 1889
Some of the principles which are applicable to the facts in this case have recently been announced by this court in Buckley v. Patterson, 39 Minn. 250 , ( 39 N. W. Rep.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by