18 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1939–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Evans v. Blesigreen2 sentences2017Shareholders of a closely held corporation have a fiduciary duty to observe “the highest standard of integrity in their dealings with each other.” Evans v. Blesi, 345 N.W.2d 775, 779 (Minn. App. 1984), review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984). 2014The common law fiduciary duty between shareholders is frequently defined in caselaw as a “duty of good faith and fair dealing.” See Gunderson v. Alliance of Computer Prof’ls, Inc., 628 N.W.2d 173, 185 (Minn. App. 2001), review granted (Minn. July 24, 2001), and appeal dismissed (Minn. Aug. 17, 2001); Pedro, 489 N.W.2d at 801 (“In a fiduciary relationship the law imposes upon them highest standards of integrity and good faith in their dealings with each other”); Evans, 345 N.W.2d at 779 (stating that “a shareholder in a closely held corporation has a fiduciary duty to deal openly, honestly and | 3 | 3 |
D.A.B. v. Browngreen2 sentences2012We have said that a “[fiduciary duty is the highest standard of duty implied by law.” D.A.B. v. Brown, 570 N.W.2d 168, 172 (Minn.App.1997). 2009The duty imposed on fiduciaries is “the highest standard of duty implied by law.” D.A.B. v. Brown, 570 N.W.2d 168, 172 (Minn.App.1997); see also Prince v. Sonnesyn, 222 Minn. 528, 535 , 25 N.W.2d 468, 472 (1946) (describing partners’ duties as fiduciaries). | 3 | 3 |
Fewell v. Tappangreen2 sentences2014The common law fiduciary duty between shareholders is frequently defined in caselaw as a “duty of good faith and fair dealing.” See Gunderson v. Alliance of Computer Prof’ls, Inc., 628 N.W.2d 173, 185 (Minn. App. 2001), review granted (Minn. July 24, 2001), and appeal dismissed (Minn. Aug. 17, 2001); Pedro, 489 N.W.2d at 801 (“In a fiduciary relationship the law imposes upon them highest standards of integrity and good faith in their dealings with each other”); Evans, 345 N.W.2d at 779 (stating that “a shareholder in a closely held corporation has a fiduciary duty to deal openly, honestly and 2014The common law fiduciary duty between shareholders is frequently defined in caselaw as a “duty of good faith and fair dealing.” See Gunderson v. Alliance of Computer Prof’ls, Inc., 628 N.W.2d 173, 185 (Minn. App. 2001), review granted (Minn. July 24, 2001), and appeal dismissed (Minn. Aug. 17, 2001); Pedro, 489 N.W.2d at 801 (“In a fiduciary relationship the law imposes upon them highest standards of integrity and good faith in their dealings with each other”); Evans, 345 N.W.2d at 779 (stating that “a shareholder in a closely held corporation has a fiduciary duty to deal openly, honestly and | 2 | 4 |
Complaint Concerning Wintongreen2 sentences2004This court has stated that “[t]he role of a judge in the administration of justice requires adherence to the highest standard of personal and official conduct. * * * A judge, therefore, has the responsibility of conforming to a higher standard of conduct than is expected of lawyers or other persons in society.” Complaint Concerning Winton, 350 N.W.2d 337, 340 (Minn.1984). 2004This court has stated that "[t]he role of a judge in the administration of justice requires adherence to the highest standard of personal and official conduct. * * * A judge, therefore, has the responsibility of conforming to a higher standard of conduct than is expected of lawyers or other persons in society." Complaint Concerning Winton, 350 N.W.2d 337, 340 (Minn.1984). | 2 | 3 |
Gunderson v. Alliance of Computer Professionals, Inc.green2 sentences2017That fiduciary duty includes the duty to deal “openly, honestly and fairly with other shareholders,” id., and to “act with complete candor in their negotiations with each other,” Gunderson v. Alliance of Computer Prof'ls, Inc., 628 N.W.2d 173, 186 (Minn. App. 2001), review granted (Minn. July 24, 2001), appeal dismissed (Minn. Aug. 17, 2001). 2014The common law fiduciary duty between shareholders is frequently defined in caselaw as a “duty of good faith and fair dealing.” See Gunderson v. Alliance of Computer Prof’ls, Inc., 628 N.W.2d 173, 185 (Minn. App. 2001), review granted (Minn. July 24, 2001), and appeal dismissed (Minn. Aug. 17, 2001); Pedro, 489 N.W.2d at 801 (“In a fiduciary relationship the law imposes upon them highest standards of integrity and good faith in their dealings with each other”); Evans, 345 N.W.2d at 779 (stating that “a shareholder in a closely held corporation has a fiduciary duty to deal openly, honestly and | 2 | 2 |
Pedro v. Pedrogreen2 sentences2014The common law fiduciary duty between shareholders is frequently defined in caselaw as a “duty of good faith and fair dealing.” See Gunderson v. Alliance of Computer Prof’ls, Inc., 628 N.W.2d 173, 185 (Minn. App. 2001), review granted (Minn. July 24, 2001), and appeal dismissed (Minn. Aug. 17, 2001); Pedro, 489 N.W.2d at 801 (“In a fiduciary relationship the law imposes upon them highest standards of integrity and good faith in their dealings with each other”); Evans, 345 N.W.2d at 779 (stating that “a shareholder in a closely held corporation has a fiduciary duty to deal openly, honestly and 1996Pedro v. Pedro, 489 N.W.2d 798, 801 (Minn.App.1992) (“The relationship among shareholders in closely held corporations is analogous to that of partners.”), review denied (Minn. Oct. 20, 1992); Evans v. Blesi, 345 N.W.2d 775, 779 (Minn.App.1984), review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984). | 2 | 2 |
McAlpine v. Millengreen2 sentences1949S. A. 323.02, subd. 8, defines a partnership as follows: “A partnership is an association of two or more persons to carry on as coowners a business for profit.” In discussing the question of the duties of partners toward each other, this court said in Kitzman v. Postier & Kruger Co. Inc. 204 Minn. 343, 346 , 283 N. W. 542 , 543: “We may accept as valid plaintiff’s statement of the law, that each of the parties to this cause occupies to the other a position of trust and as such ‘must exercise the most scrupulous good faith toward each other.’ Hence, ‘in any dispute touching any transaction by w 1949S. A. 323.02, subd. 8, defines a partnership as follows: “A partnership is an association of two or more persons to carry on as coowners a business for profit.” In discussing the question of the duties of partners toward each other, this court said in Kitzman v. Postier & Kruger Co. Inc. 204 Minn. 343, 346 , 283 N. W. 542 , 543: “We may accept as valid plaintiff’s statement of the law, that each of the parties to this cause occupies to the other a position of trust and as such ‘must exercise the most scrupulous good faith toward each other.’ Hence, ‘in any dispute touching any transaction by w | 1 | 2 |
McDonald v. PDQgreen1 sentence2026Cloud Auto “had the right to reasonably expect Arneson to follow its cash-handling procedures” and that “[c]reating documentation for cash received by a car dealership is essential to the employer’s accounting.” 3 In McDonald v. PDQ, McDonald was discharged “for violating a company policy requiring cashiers to ring up purchases immediately.” 341 N.W.2d 892, 893 (Minn. App. 1984). | 1 | 1 |
Minnesota & Pacific Railroad v. Sibleygreen1 sentence2024Co. v. Sibley, 2 Minn. 13, 20 (1858) (“In construing a statute . . . , the great object is to ascertain and interpret so as to carry out the intention of the lawgiver; and as a primary rule, the language used is to be first considered, as being the best evidence of what that 1 We once noted that proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” was “the highest standard of proof.” Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, 728 N.W.2d 510 , 526 n. 9 (Minn. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
Prince v. Sonnesyngreen2 sentences2009The duty imposed on fiduciaries is “the highest standard of duty implied by law.” D.A.B. v. Brown, 570 N.W.2d 168, 172 (Minn.App.1997); see also Prince v. Sonnesyn, 222 Minn. 528, 535 , 25 N.W.2d 468, 472 (1946) (describing partners’ duties as fiduciaries). 2009The duty imposed on fiduciaries is “the highest standard of duty implied by law.” D.A.B. v. Brown, 570 N.W.2d 168, 172 (Minn.App.1997); see also Prince v. Sonnesyn, 222 Minn. 528, 535 , 25 N.W.2d 468, 472 (1946) (describing partners’ duties as fiduciaries). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency
green
1 sentence2024Co. v. Sibley, 2 Minn. 13, 20 (1858) (“In construing a statute . . . , the great object is to ascertain and interpret so as to carry out the intention of the lawgiver; and as a primary rule, the language used is to be first considered, as being the best evidence of what that 1 We once noted that proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” was “the highest standard of proof.” Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, 728 N.W.2d 510 , 526 n. 9 (Minn. 2007). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
United States v. Funds in the Amount of Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Dollars ($30,670.00), Antonio Calhoun, Claimant-Appellant
green
1 sentence2007United States v. Funds in the Amount of $30,670, 403 F.3d 448 , 454 n. 4 (7th Cir.2005). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Thiele v. Stich
green
1 sentence2007Id. [9] We note that Olhausen, Vail, and Robinson are all criminal cases involving the highest standard of proofbeyond a reasonable doubtas to the identity of drugs. [10] We note that before August 23, 2000, the effective date of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, 18 U.S.C. § 983 (c)(1) (CAFRA), the federal government could forfeit cash after establishing probable cause as to the connection between the cash and drug trafficking. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield
green
2 sentences1991Use of the highest standard of proof known to our jurisprudence was specified to stop the all-too-common removal of Indian children from their Indian families and *417 tribal communities “by non-tribal governmental authorities who have no basis for intelligently evaluating the cultural and social premises underlying Indian home life and childrearing.” Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 34-35 , 109 S.Ct. 1597, 1601 , 104 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989). 1991Use of the highest standard of proof known to our jurisprudence was specified to stop the all-too-common removal of Indian children from their Indian families and *417 tribal communities “by non-tribal governmental authorities who have no basis for intelligently evaluating the cultural and social premises underlying Indian home life and childrearing.” Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 34-35 , 109 S.Ct. 1597, 1601 , 104 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Venier v. Forbes
green
2 sentences1949Section 323.20 provides: “Every partner must account to the partnership for any benefit, and hold as trustee for it any profits derived by him without the consent of the other partners from any transaction connected with the formation, conduct, or liquidation of the partnership or from any use by him of its property.” In Venier v. Forbes, 223 Minn. 69, 74 , 25 N. W. (2d) 704, 708 , we held “that the relationship between partners is essentially one of mutual trust and confidence and that the law imposes upon them the highest standard of integrity and good faith in their dealings with each other 1949Section 323.20 provides: “Every partner must account to the partnership for any benefit, and hold as trustee for it any profits derived by him without the consent of the other partners from any transaction connected with the formation, conduct, or liquidation of the partnership or from any use by him of its property.” In Venier v. Forbes, 223 Minn. 69, 74 , 25 N. W. (2d) 704, 708 , we held “that the relationship between partners is essentially one of mutual trust and confidence and that the law imposes upon them the highest standard of integrity and good faith in their dealings with each other | 1 | 1949–1949 |
Kitzman v. Postier Kruger Co. Inc.
green
2 sentences1949S. A. 323.02, subd. 8, defines a partnership as follows: “A partnership is an association of two or more persons to carry on as coowners a business for profit.” In discussing the question of the duties of partners toward each other, this court said in Kitzman v. Postier & Kruger Co. Inc. 204 Minn. 343, 346 , 283 N. W. 542 , 543: “We may accept as valid plaintiff’s statement of the law, that each of the parties to this cause occupies to the other a position of trust and as such ‘must exercise the most scrupulous good faith toward each other.’ Hence, ‘in any dispute touching any transaction by w 1949S. A. 323.02, subd. 8, defines a partnership as follows: “A partnership is an association of two or more persons to carry on as coowners a business for profit.” In discussing the question of the duties of partners toward each other, this court said in Kitzman v. Postier & Kruger Co. Inc. 204 Minn. 343, 346 , 283 N. W. 542 , 543: “We may accept as valid plaintiff’s statement of the law, that each of the parties to this cause occupies to the other a position of trust and as such ‘must exercise the most scrupulous good faith toward each other.’ Hence, ‘in any dispute touching any transaction by w | 1 | 1949–1949 |
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.