Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Dakota County Abstract Co. v. Richardsongreen2 sentences1989See Dakota County Abstract Co. v. Richardson, 312 Minn. 353, 356 , 252 N.W.2d 124, 126-27 (1977) (the reviewing court “must not substitute its view of the evidence for that adopted by the hearing examiner if the record supports the hearing examiner’s determination”). 2. 1989See Dakota County Abstract Co. v. Richardson, 312 Minn. 353, 356 , 252 N.W.2d 124, 126-27 (1977) (the reviewing court “must not substitute its view of the evidence for that adopted by the hearing examiner if the record supports the hearing examiner’s determination”). 2. | 2 | 2 |
Troxel v. Granvillegreen2 sentences2018See Troxel v. Granville , 530 U.S. 57 , 66, 120 S.Ct. 2054 , 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000) ("[T]he Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children."). 2018See Troxel v. Granville , 530 U.S. 57 , 66, 120 S.Ct. 2054 , 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000) ("[T]he Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children."). | 1 | 1 |
Katz Corp. v. T. H. Canty & Co.green2 sentences1990Canty & Co., 168 Conn. 201, 209-10 , 362 A.2d 975, 979-80 (1975) (allegations that officers and directors bought corporate shares at bargain price insufficient to establish usurpation of corporate opportunity); Tovrea Land & Cattle Co. v. Linsenmeyer, 100 Ariz. 107, 122-23 , 412 P.2d 47, 57-58 (1966) (corporation president borrowed money from corporation to purchase corporate shares); Zidell v. Zidell, Inc., 277 Or. 423, 429 , 560 P.2d 1091, 1095 (1977) (shareholders bought corporate shares at bargain price and allegation purchase should have been for the benefit of all shareholders; held, pla 1990Canty & Co., 168 Conn. 201, 209-10 , 362 A.2d 975, 979-80 (1975) (allegations that officers and directors bought corporate shares at bargain price insufficient to establish usurpation of corporate opportunity); Tovrea Land & Cattle Co. v. Linsenmeyer, 100 Ariz. 107, 122-23 , 412 P.2d 47, 57-58 (1966) (corporation president borrowed money from corporation to purchase corporate shares); Zidell v. Zidell, Inc., 277 Or. 423, 429 , 560 P.2d 1091, 1095 (1977) (shareholders bought corporate shares at bargain price and allegation purchase should have been for the benefit of all shareholders; held, pla | 1 | 1 |
Tovrea Land and Cattle Company v. Linsenmeyergreen2 sentences1990Canty & Co., 168 Conn. 201, 209-10 , 362 A.2d 975, 979-80 (1975) (allegations that officers and directors bought corporate shares at bargain price insufficient to establish usurpation of corporate opportunity); Tovrea Land & Cattle Co. v. Linsenmeyer, 100 Ariz. 107, 122-23 , 412 P.2d 47, 57-58 (1966) (corporation president borrowed money from corporation to purchase corporate shares); Zidell v. Zidell, Inc., 277 Or. 423, 429 , 560 P.2d 1091, 1095 (1977) (shareholders bought corporate shares at bargain price and allegation purchase should have been for the benefit of all shareholders; held, pla 1990Canty & Co., 168 Conn. 201, 209-10 , 362 A.2d 975, 979-80 (1975) (allegations that officers and directors bought corporate shares at bargain price insufficient to establish usurpation of corporate opportunity); Tovrea Land & Cattle Co. v. Linsenmeyer, 100 Ariz. 107, 122-23 , 412 P.2d 47, 57-58 (1966) (corporation president borrowed money from corporation to purchase corporate shares); Zidell v. Zidell, Inc., 277 Or. 423, 429 , 560 P.2d 1091, 1095 (1977) (shareholders bought corporate shares at bargain price and allegation purchase should have been for the benefit of all shareholders; held, pla | 1 | 1 |
Zidell v. Zidell, Inc.green2 sentences1990Canty & Co., 168 Conn. 201, 209-10 , 362 A.2d 975, 979-80 (1975) (allegations that officers and directors bought corporate shares at bargain price insufficient to establish usurpation of corporate opportunity); Tovrea Land & Cattle Co. v. Linsenmeyer, 100 Ariz. 107, 122-23 , 412 P.2d 47, 57-58 (1966) (corporation president borrowed money from corporation to purchase corporate shares); Zidell v. Zidell, Inc., 277 Or. 423, 429 , 560 P.2d 1091, 1095 (1977) (shareholders bought corporate shares at bargain price and allegation purchase should have been for the benefit of all shareholders; held, pla 1990Canty & Co., 168 Conn. 201, 209-10 , 362 A.2d 975, 979-80 (1975) (allegations that officers and directors bought corporate shares at bargain price insufficient to establish usurpation of corporate opportunity); Tovrea Land & Cattle Co. v. Linsenmeyer, 100 Ariz. 107, 122-23 , 412 P.2d 47, 57-58 (1966) (corporation president borrowed money from corporation to purchase corporate shares); Zidell v. Zidell, Inc., 277 Or. 423, 429 , 560 P.2d 1091, 1095 (1977) (shareholders bought corporate shares at bargain price and allegation purchase should have been for the benefit of all shareholders; held, pla | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ekstedt v. Village of New Hope
green
2 sentences1977Ekstedt v. Village of New Hope, 292 Minn. 152 , 193 N. W. 2d 821 (1972). 1977Ekstedt v. Village of New Hope, 292 Minn. 152 , 193 N. W. 2d 821 (1972). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.