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.
11 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Christensen v. Milbank Insurance Co.green1 sentence2025Christensen, 658 N.W.2d at 585 (emphasis added) (quotations, brackets, and citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Dairy Farm Leasing Co. v. Haas Livestock Selling Agency, Inc.green1 sentence2024On appeal from the denial of a conversion claim, we review the district court’s decision to determine “whether the evidence is sufficient to support the [district] court’s findings and whether the findings support its conclusions of law.” See Dairy Farm Leasing Co. v. Haas Livestock Selling Agency, Inc., 458 N.W.2d 417, 418 (Minn. App. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
Thomas B. Olson & Associates, P.A. v. Leffert, Jay & Polglaze, P.A.green2 sentences2017See id. at 920-22 . 2017See id. at 920-22. | 1 | 1 |
Superior Edge, Inc. v. Monsanto Co.green1 sentence2014In Superior Edge, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., the Minnesota federal district court denied a motion to dismiss a claim under the MUTSA and granted a motion to dismiss a conversion claim when “there [was] no information that [plaintiff] allege[d] was converted that it [did] not also allege is a trade secret.” 964 F.Supp.2d 1017, 1039-40 (D. | 1 | 1 |
Shourek v. Stirlinggreen1 sentence2012In Shourek v. Stirling, a contributing account holder’s estate brought a conversion claim against a noncontributing account holder who withdrew funds from multiple joint accounts before the contributing account holder’s death. 621 N.E.2d 1107, 1108 (Ind.1993). | 1 | 1 |
DLH, Inc. v. Russgreen1 sentence2008Conversion is “an act of willful interference with personal property, done without lawful justification by which any person entitled thereto is deprived of use and possession.” DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 71 (Minn.1997) (quotation omitted); see also Hildegarde, Inc. v. Wright, 244 Minn. 410, 413 , 70 N.W.2d 257, 259 (1955). | 1 | 1 |
Hildegarde, Inc. v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2008Conversion is “an act of willful interference with personal property, done without lawful justification by which any person entitled thereto is deprived of use and possession.” DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 71 (Minn.1997) (quotation omitted); see also Hildegarde, Inc. v. Wright, 244 Minn. 410, 413 , 70 N.W.2d 257, 259 (1955). 2008Conversion is “an act of willful interference with personal property, done without lawful justification by which any person entitled thereto is deprived of use and possession.” DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 71 (Minn.1997) (quotation omitted); see also Hildegarde, Inc. v. Wright, 244 Minn. 410, 413 , 70 N.W.2d 257, 259 (1955). | 1 | 1 |
Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Minneapolis Community Development Agencygreen1 sentence2000Agency, 551 N.W.2d 235, 238 (Minn.App.1996) (where possession is held through proper legal channels a conversion claim will not he). | 1 | 1 |
E.S.P., Inc. v. Midway National Bank of St. Paulgreen1 sentence1998In Geldert v. American Nat’l Bank, this court expressly held that, under Minn.Stat. § 336.3-419, “a payee cannot directly sue a depositary bank for conversion.” 506 N.W.2d at 25 ; see also E.S.P., Inc. v. Midway Nat’l Bank, 447 N.W.2d 882, 883 (Minn.1989) (Minnesota law prevents payee from asserting a conversion claim directly against depositary or collecting bank). | 1 | 1 |
Elzie v. Commissioner of Public Safetygreen1 sentence1993See Elzie, 298 N.W.2d at 32 . | 1 | 1 |
Rudnitski v. Seelygreen1 sentence1990Rud-nitski v. Seely, 441 N.W.2d 827, 830-31 (Minn.App.1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Geldert v. American National Bank
green
1 sentence1998In Geldert v. American Nat’l Bank, this court expressly held that, under Minn.Stat. § 336.3-419, “a payee cannot directly sue a depositary bank for conversion.” 506 N.W.2d at 25 ; see also E.S.P., Inc. v. Midway Nat’l Bank, 447 N.W.2d 882, 883 (Minn.1989) (Minnesota law prevents payee from asserting a conversion claim directly against depositary or collecting bank). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
DLH, Inc. v. Russ
green
1 sentence1997Id. at 329 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.