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.
32 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1896–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lunning v. Land O'Lakesgreen2 sentences2014“When an application of the [statute will protect, rather than prevent, a fraud, equity requires that the doctrine of equitable estoppel be applied.” Id. 2009See Lunning v. Land O’Lakes, 303 N.W.2d 452, 457 (Minn.1980) (concluding when application of statute of frauds will protect, rather than prevent, fraud, equity requires that doctrine of equitable estoppel be applied); Doyle v. Wohlrabe, 243 Minn. 107 , 66 N.W.2d 757, 761 (1954) (stating that basic purpose of statute of frauds is to provide reasonable safeguards to insure honest dealing and it may not be used as an instrument of fraud); Schaefer v. Thoeny, 199 Minn. 610, 614-15 , 273 N.W. 190, 193 (1937) (holding that equity will not permit statute of frauds to be used as means of committing fr | 2 | 3 |
Hydra-Mac, Inc. v. Onan Corp.green2 sentences2015Hydra-Mac, Inc. v. Onan Corp., 450 N.W.2d 913, 919 (Minn. 1990). 2000Hydra-Mac, Inc. v. Onan Corp., 450 N.W.2d 913, 919 (Minn.1990). | 2 | 2 |
Ridgewood Development Co. v. Stategreen2 sentences2010In Ridgewood, the supreme court implicitly recognized that erroneous government advice could give rise to an equitable-estoppel defense. 294 N.W.2d at 293 (“Here there is no wrongful governmental conduct; no governmental official has given improper advice.”). 2010Ridgewood, 294 N.W.2d at 292-93 . | 1 | 2 |
Matter of Westling Mfg., Inc.green1 sentence2014Westling, 442 N.W.2d at 332. | 1 | 1 |
Ochs v. Streater, Inc.green1 sentence2014See Ochs v. Streater, 568 N.W.2d 858, 860 (Minn.App.1997) (concluding that equitable estoppel did not toll statute of limitations when plaintiff “offered no evidence that circumstances beyond his control prohibited him from serving his complaint within the statutory period”); see also Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446, 453 (7th Cir.1990) (stating that, in equitable-tolling cases, the statute of limitations typically has run before the plaintiff knew of her claim and that, when “the necessary information is gathered after the claim arose but before the statute of limitations has run | 1 | 1 |
Joseph F. Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corporationgreen1 sentence2014See Ochs v. Streater, 568 N.W.2d 858, 860 (Minn.App.1997) (concluding that equitable estoppel did not toll statute of limitations when plaintiff “offered no evidence that circumstances beyond his control prohibited him from serving his complaint within the statutory period”); see also Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446, 453 (7th Cir.1990) (stating that, in equitable-tolling cases, the statute of limitations typically has run before the plaintiff knew of her claim and that, when “the necessary information is gathered after the claim arose but before the statute of limitations has run | 1 | 1 |
Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles County Board of Commissionersgreen1 sentence2010A. Wrongful Conduct The threshold question when analyzing an equitable-estoppel defense is whether the government’s act or omission that induced reliance was “wrongful.” Id.-, see also Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles County Bd. of Comm’rs, 617 N.W.2d 566, 576 (Minn.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Doyle v. Wohlrabegreen2 sentences2009See Lunning v. Land O’Lakes, 303 N.W.2d 452, 457 (Minn.1980) (concluding when application of statute of frauds will protect, rather than prevent, fraud, equity requires that doctrine of equitable estoppel be applied); Doyle v. Wohlrabe, 243 Minn. 107 , 66 N.W.2d 757, 761 (1954) (stating that basic purpose of statute of frauds is to provide reasonable safeguards to insure honest dealing and it may not be used as an instrument of fraud); Schaefer v. Thoeny, 199 Minn. 610, 614-15 , 273 N.W. 190, 193 (1937) (holding that equity will not permit statute of frauds to be used as means of committing fr 2009See Lunning v. Land O’Lakes, 303 N.W.2d 452, 457 (Minn.1980) (concluding when application of statute of frauds will protect, rather than prevent, fraud, equity requires that doctrine of equitable estoppel be applied); Doyle v. Wohlrabe, 243 Minn. 107 , 66 N.W.2d 757, 761 (1954) (stating that basic purpose of statute of frauds is to provide reasonable safeguards to insure honest dealing and it may not be used as an instrument of fraud); Schaefer v. Thoeny, 199 Minn. 610, 614-15 , 273 N.W. 190, 193 (1937) (holding that equity will not permit statute of frauds to be used as means of committing fr | 1 | 1 |
Schaefer v. Thoenygreen2 sentences2009See Lunning v. Land O’Lakes, 303 N.W.2d 452, 457 (Minn.1980) (concluding when application of statute of frauds will protect, rather than prevent, fraud, equity requires that doctrine of equitable estoppel be applied); Doyle v. Wohlrabe, 243 Minn. 107 , 66 N.W.2d 757, 761 (1954) (stating that basic purpose of statute of frauds is to provide reasonable safeguards to insure honest dealing and it may not be used as an instrument of fraud); Schaefer v. Thoeny, 199 Minn. 610, 614-15 , 273 N.W. 190, 193 (1937) (holding that equity will not permit statute of frauds to be used as means of committing fr 2009See Lunning v. Land O’Lakes, 303 N.W.2d 452, 457 (Minn.1980) (concluding when application of statute of frauds will protect, rather than prevent, fraud, equity requires that doctrine of equitable estoppel be applied); Doyle v. Wohlrabe, 243 Minn. 107 , 66 N.W.2d 757, 761 (1954) (stating that basic purpose of statute of frauds is to provide reasonable safeguards to insure honest dealing and it may not be used as an instrument of fraud); Schaefer v. Thoeny, 199 Minn. 610, 614-15 , 273 N.W. 190, 193 (1937) (holding that equity will not permit statute of frauds to be used as means of committing fr | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of McNattin v. McNattingreen1 sentence1997See McNattin v. McNattin, 450 N.W.2d 169, 172 (Minn.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Bethesda Lutheran Church v. Twin City Construction Co.green1 sentence1989Northern Petrochemical Co. v. United States Fire Insurance Co., 277 N.W.2d 408, 410 (Minn.1979); Bethesda Lutheran Church v. Twin City Construction Co., 356 N.W.2d 344, 349 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), pet for rev. denied (Minn. February 5, 1985). | 1 | 1 |
Northern Petrochemical Co. v. United States Fire Insurance Co.green1 sentence1989Northern Petrochemical Co. v. United States Fire Insurance Co., 277 N.W.2d 408, 410 (Minn.1979); Bethesda Lutheran Church v. Twin City Construction Co., 356 N.W.2d 344, 349 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), pet for rev. denied (Minn. February 5, 1985). | 1 | 1 |
Nelson v. Smithgreen1 sentence1989Nelson v. Smith, 349 N.W.2d 849, 853 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Weiss v. Great Northern Railway Companygreen2 sentences1986See Weiss v. Great Northern Railway Co., 286 Minn. 278, 282 , 176 N.W.2d 109, 112 (1970). 1986See Weiss v. Great Northern Railway Co., 286 Minn. 278, 282 , 176 N.W.2d 109, 112 (1970). | 1 | 1 |
Mesaba Aviation Division of Halvorson of Duluth, Inc. v. County of Itascagreen2 sentences1980Mesaba Aviation Div. v. County of Itasca, 258 N.W.2d 877, 880 (Minn.1977). 1980Mesaba Aviation Div. v. County of Itasca, 258 N.W.2d 877, 880 (Minn.1977). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dimond v. Manheim
green
2 sentences1968The doctrine of equitable estoppel, which was originally expressed by this court in Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , 63 N. W. 495 , was condensed in the more recent decision of Village of Wells v. Layne-Minnesota Co. 240 Minn. 132, 141 , 60 N. W. (2d) 621, 627 , in the following statement: “Equitable estoppel arises from the conduct of a party. 1968The doctrine of equitable estoppel, which was originally expressed by this court in Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , 63 N. W. 495 , was condensed in the more recent decision of Village of Wells v. Layne-Minnesota Co. 240 Minn. 132, 141 , 60 N. W. (2d) 621, 627 , in the following statement: “Equitable estoppel arises from the conduct of a party. | 2 | 1960–1968 |
SN4, LLC v. Anchor Bank, FSB
green
1 sentence2024In SN4, the six-element test pertained to when the application of the statute of frauds would “protect, rather than prevent, a fraud,” stating that in this context “equity require[d] that the doctrine of equitable estoppel be applied.” Id. (quotation omitted). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
City of North Oaks v. Sarpal
green
1 sentence2014The district court also concluded that the balance of the equities did not favor the application of equitable estoppel, see id., because the Femrites entered into an “underhanded agreement[]” and “[were] not entitled to recover under an equitable remedy theory to further a scheme of deception.” The Femrites argue that the equities instead favor them because the city first failed to create a written agreement and then used the absence of a written contract to change the parties’ agreement. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Davies v. West Publishing Co.
green
1 sentence2004Id. at 842 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Hansen v. C.W. Mears, Inc.
green
2 sentences1999The supreme court or the legislature might wish to consider whether equitable estoppel should be available in unemployment compensation cases.” Id. at 781 . 1999Mears, Inc., 486 N.W.2d 776 (Minn.App.1992), review denied (Minn. July 6, 1992), this court stated: "We are not reviewing a trial court decision, but an agency decision, and under present law we lack jurisdiction to apply the equitable estoppel doctrine to this case. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Ayers v. Rudolph's, Inc.
green
2 sentences1991In Ayers v. Rudolph 's, Inc., 392 N.W.2d 647 (Minn.App.1986), this court affirmed the trial court’s denial of a rule 60.02 motion on’the ground that appellant’s counsel failed to raise an equitable estoppel defense to a motion for summary judgment. 1991In Ayers v. Rudolph's, Inc., 392 N.W.2d 647 (Minn.App.1986), this court affirmed the trial court's denial of a rule 60.02 motion on the ground that appellant's counsel failed to raise an equitable estoppel defense to a motion for summary judgment. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Munsch v. Stelter
green
2 sentences1987In Munsch v. Stetler, 109 Minn. 403 , 124 N.W. 14 (1910), appellant and respondent orally agreed to construct a drainage ditch running over each party’s land. 1987In Munsch v. Stetler, 109 Minn. 403 , 124 N.W. 14 (1910), appellant and respondent orally agreed to construct a drainage ditch running over each party’s land. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
O'DONNELL v. Continental Casualty Co.
green
2 sentences1987Id. at 127 . 1987Id. at 127 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Brown v. Minnesota Department of Public Welfare
green
1 sentence1986In Brown v. Minnesota Department of Public Welfare, 368 N.W.2d 906 (Minn.1985), the Minnesota Supreme Court described es-toppel as: an equitable doctrine addressed to the discretion of the court and * * * intended to prevent a party from taking unconscionable advantage of his own wrong by asserting his strict legal rights. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
McCauley v. Michael
green
2 sentences1980He had written life insurance on defendant and casualty and fire insurance on Bradford's before he invested. [7] The current Minnesota Blue Sky Law requires that an action for rescission or damages be brought within 3 years, Minn.St. § 80A.23, subd. 7, and would thus preclude these cases. [8] Our most recent blue sky case, McCauley v. Michael, 256 N.W.2d 491 (Minn.1977), also did not preclude an equitable estoppel defense in blue sky cases. 1980The current Minnesota Blue Sky Law requires that an action for rescission or damages be brought within 3 years, Minn.St. § 80A.23, subd. 7, and would thus preclude these cases. .Our most recent blue sky case, McCauley v. Michael, 256 N.W.2d 491 (Minn. 1977), also did not preclude an equitable estoppel defense in blue sky cases. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Jacoby v. Parkland Distilling Co.
green
2 sentences1978In rejecting this assertion, the trial court relied upon Jacoby v. Parkland Distilling Co., 41 Minn. 227 , 43 N.W. 52 (1889). 1978In rejecting this assertion, the trial court relied upon Jacoby v. Parkland Distilling Co., 41 Minn. 227 , 43 N.W. 52 (1889). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Village of Wells v. Layne-Minnesota Co.
green
2 sentences1968The doctrine of equitable estoppel, which was originally expressed by this court in Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , 63 N. W. 495 , was condensed in the more recent decision of Village of Wells v. Layne-Minnesota Co. 240 Minn. 132, 141 , 60 N. W. (2d) 621, 627 , in the following statement: “Equitable estoppel arises from the conduct of a party. 1968The doctrine of equitable estoppel, which was originally expressed by this court in Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , 63 N. W. 495 , was condensed in the more recent decision of Village of Wells v. Layne-Minnesota Co. 240 Minn. 132, 141 , 60 N. W. (2d) 621, 627 , in the following statement: “Equitable estoppel arises from the conduct of a party. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Bell v. Goodnature
green
2 sentences1960The statute of frauds does not prevent the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel. 2 Affirmed. 1 see, also, Combs v. Cooper, 5 Minn. 200 (254); Bell v. Goodnature, 50 Minn. 417 , 52 N. W. 908 ; LePak v. Hedberg, 170 Minn. 495 , 213 N. W. 40 ; Lobnitz v. Fairchild, 186 Minn. 215 , 243 N. W. 62 . 2 Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , 63 N. W. 495 ; Bell v. Good-nature, 50 Minn. 417 , 52 N. W. 908 ; see, Annotation, 50 A. L. 1960The statute of frauds does not prevent the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel. 2 Affirmed. 1 see, also, Combs v. Cooper, 5 Minn. 200 (254); Bell v. Goodnature, 50 Minn. 417 , 52 N. W. 908 ; LePak v. Hedberg, 170 Minn. 495 , 213 N. W. 40 ; Lobnitz v. Fairchild, 186 Minn. 215 , 243 N. W. 62 . 2 Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , 63 N. W. 495 ; Bell v. Good-nature, 50 Minn. 417 , 52 N. W. 908 ; see, Annotation, 50 A. L. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Le Pak v. Hedberg
neutral
2 sentences1960The statute of frauds does not prevent the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel. 2 Affirmed. 1 see, also, Combs v. Cooper, 5 Minn. 200 (254); Bell v. Goodnature, 50 Minn. 417 , 52 N. W. 908 ; LePak v. Hedberg, 170 Minn. 495 , 213 N. W. 40 ; Lobnitz v. Fairchild, 186 Minn. 215 , 243 N. W. 62 . 2 Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , 63 N. W. 495 ; Bell v. Good-nature, 50 Minn. 417 , 52 N. W. 908 ; see, Annotation, 50 A. L. 1960The statute of frauds does not prevent the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel. 2 Affirmed. 1 see, also, Combs v. Cooper, 5 Minn. 200 (254); Bell v. Goodnature, 50 Minn. 417 , 52 N. W. 908 ; LePak v. Hedberg, 170 Minn. 495 , 213 N. W. 40 ; Lobnitz v. Fairchild, 186 Minn. 215 , 243 N. W. 62 . 2 Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , 63 N. W. 495 ; Bell v. Good-nature, 50 Minn. 417 , 52 N. W. 908 ; see, Annotation, 50 A. L. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Lobnitz v. Fairchild
green
2 sentences1960The statute of frauds does not prevent the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel. 2 Affirmed. 1 see, also, Combs v. Cooper, 5 Minn. 200 (254); Bell v. Goodnature, 50 Minn. 417 , 52 N. W. 908 ; LePak v. Hedberg, 170 Minn. 495 , 213 N. W. 40 ; Lobnitz v. Fairchild, 186 Minn. 215 , 243 N. W. 62 . 2 Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , 63 N. W. 495 ; Bell v. Good-nature, 50 Minn. 417 , 52 N. W. 908 ; see, Annotation, 50 A. L. 1960The statute of frauds does not prevent the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel. 2 Affirmed. 1 see, also, Combs v. Cooper, 5 Minn. 200 (254); Bell v. Goodnature, 50 Minn. 417 , 52 N. W. 908 ; LePak v. Hedberg, 170 Minn. 495 , 213 N. W. 40 ; Lobnitz v. Fairchild, 186 Minn. 215 , 243 N. W. 62 . 2 Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , 63 N. W. 495 ; Bell v. Good-nature, 50 Minn. 417 , 52 N. W. 908 ; see, Annotation, 50 A. L. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
| North Star Land Co. v. Taylor neutral | 1 | 1933–1933 |
| Smith v. Fletcher green | 1 | 1927–1927 |
| Schauble v. Hedding neutral | 1 | 1924–1924 |
| Sumner v. Williams green | 1 | 1915–1915 |
| Pinkus v. Minneapolis Linen Mills green | 1 | 1897–1897 |
| Woodbury v. Short neutral | 1 | 1896–1896 |
| Ford v. Whitlock neutral | 1 | 1896–1896 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.