DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Reitan v. Goebel, 42 N.W. 394.

16 citing documents.

  • Swanson v. Domning 86 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 1957
    Co. 40 Minn. 476, 479 , , we said: “The defendant is not in position to deny the authority of its agent to make the representations.
  • Bernstein v. Levitz 16 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1944
    Co. 40 Minn. 476 , ; McDermott y. Ralich, 188 Minn. 501 , ; Phelps v. Aurora State Bank, 186 Minn. 479 , ; Cannon Falls Holding Co. v. Peterson, 184 Minn. 294 , .
  • McDermott v. Ralich 247 N.W. 683 Minn. 1933
    Co. 40 Minn. 476 , ; Nelson v. Berkner, 139 Minn. 301 , ; Smith v. Vosika, 163 Minn. 12 , ; Guy T. Bisbee Co. v. Granite City Inv.
  • Robie v. Holdahl 230 N.W. 641 Minn. 1930
    Co. 40 Minn. 476 , ; Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491 , ; Freeman v. F. P. Harbaugh Co. 114 Minn. 283 , ; Roseberry v. Hart-Parr Co. 145 Minn. 142 , ; Pioneer Elec.
  • Smith v. Vosika 203 N.W. 428 Minn. 1925
    Co. 40 Minn. 476 , ; McElrath v. Electric Inv.
  • Independent Harvester Co. v. Malzohn 179 N.W. 727 Minn. 1920
    Co. 40 Minn. 476 , ; National Citizens Bank of Mankato v. Bowen, 109 Minn. 473 , ; Gasser v. Great Northern Ins.
  • Roseberry v. Hart-Parr Co. 176 N.W. 175 Minn. 1920
    Co. 40 Minn. 476 , ; Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491 , ; Atherton v. Barber, 112 Minn. 523 , 128 N W. 827, 21 Ann. Cas.
  • Nelson v. Berkner 166 N.W. 347 Minn. 1918
    Co. 40 Minn. 476 , ; Hodsden v. Hodsden, 69 Minn. 486 , ; McElrath v. Electric Inv.
  • Arcade Investment Co. v. Hawley 165 N.W. 477 Minn. 1917
    Co. 40 Minn. 476 , ; McElrath v. Electric Investments Co. 114 Minn. 358 , ; and Edward Thompson Co. v. Schroeder, 131 Minn. 125 , .
  • Bigelow v. Barnes 140 N.W. 1032 Minn. 1913
    Co. 40 Minn. 476 , ; 9 Cyc.
  • Cox v. Edwards 139 N.W. 1070 Minn. 1913
    Co. 40 Minn. 476, 478 , , in this language: “But if the agent, in making those representations, intended to create in-plaintiffs the belief that it was, as a fact, the then intention of the defendant to do the things mentioned, and the representations might be understood, and were understood by plaintiffs, as asserting that fact, then a char
  • Distinguished Olson v. Smith 134 N.W. 117 Minn. 1912
    Co. 40 Minn. 476 , , and it is not distinguishable from, but is ruled by, McEl *433 rath v. Electric Investments Co., 114 Minn. 358 , .
  • McElrath v. Electric Investments Co. 131 N.W. 380 Minn. 1911
    Co., 40 Minn. 476 , , if in making the representations defendant “intended to create in plaintiffs the belief that it was, as a fact, the then intention of the” traction company to complete the road at the time represented, and “the representations might be understood and were understood by plaintiffs as asserting that fact,” then a char
  • Atherton v. Barber 128 N.W. 827 Minn. 1910
  • National Citizens Bank v. Bowen 124 N.W. 241 Minn. 1910
    Co., 40 Minn. 476 , ; German Nat.
  • Adolph v. Minneapolis & Pacific Railway Co. 59 N.W. 959 Minn. 1894
    Co., 40 Minn. 476 , ( .)