9 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sucker v. Cranmergreen2 sentences2025Co. v. Rohde, 820 N.W.2d 1 , 10–14 (Minn. 2012) (discussing an insurer’s right to pursue an equitable subrogation claim against an insured’s negligent tenant); First Nat’l Bank of Menahga v. Schunk, 276 N.W. 290 , 292– 93 (Minn. 1937) (discussing the right of a lender who paid off a senior mortgage on a property to be equitably subrogated to the rights of the senior mortgagee); Sucker v. Cranmer, 149 N.W. 16, 18 (Minn. 1914) (discussing the rights of a purchaser at a foreclosure sale who paid taxes on a property during the redemption period to be equitably 11 subrogated to the State’s right to 1977Sucker v. Cranmer, 127 Minn. 124 , 149 N.W. 16 (1914); Elliott v. Tainter, 88 Minn. 377 , 93 N.W. 124 (1903); Emmert v. Thompson, 49 Minn. 386 , 52 N.W. 31 (1892). | 1 | 2 |
First National Bank v. Schunkgreen2 sentences2025Co. v. Rohde, 820 N.W.2d 1 , 10–14 (Minn. 2012) (discussing an insurer’s right to pursue an equitable subrogation claim against an insured’s negligent tenant); First Nat’l Bank of Menahga v. Schunk, 276 N.W. 290 , 292– 93 (Minn. 1937) (discussing the right of a lender who paid off a senior mortgage on a property to be equitably subrogated to the rights of the senior mortgagee); Sucker v. Cranmer, 149 N.W. 16, 18 (Minn. 1914) (discussing the rights of a purchaser at a foreclosure sale who paid taxes on a property during the redemption period to be equitably 11 subrogated to the State’s right to 2003First Nat’l Bank of Menahga v. Schunk, 201 Minn. 359, 363 , 276 N.W. 290, 292-93 (1937). | 1 | 2 |
Emmert v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2005See, e.g., Emmert v. Thompson, 49 Minn. 386 , 52 N.W. 31 (1892). 2005See, e.g., Emmert v. Thompson, 49 Minn. 386 , 52 N.W. 31 (1892). | 1 | 2 |
Ripley v. Piehlgreen1 sentence2024Under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, a party “who has discharged the debt of another may succeed in substitution to the rights and position of the satisfied creditor.” Ripley v. Piehl, 700 N.W.2d 540, 545 (Minn. App. 2005). | 1 | 1 |
Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. O'Connor & Hannangreen1 sentence2002Motor Freight, Inc. v. O'Connor & Hannan, 494 N.W.2d 261, 266 (Minn.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Marker v. Greenberggreen1 sentence2002Co. v. Vaccari, 310 Minn. 97, 99 , 245 N.W.2d 844 , 846 (1976). [2] The district court's dismissal with prejudice of all of Farmland's claims was inconsistent with its conclusion that Farmland could maintain a legal malpractice claim against Erstad & Riemer under the doctrine of equitable subrogation. [3] Given that the district court's order dismissed all of Farmland's claims, it is unclear what was accomplished by the court of appeals' reversal of the district court on this issue. [4] We have recognized an exception to this rule, extending an attorney's duty to a nonclient in a "narrow range | 1 | 1 |
Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A.green2 sentences2002See Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A., 520 N.W.2d 406, 408 (Minn.1994); Blue Water Corp., 336 N.W.2d at 282 . 2002See Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A., 520 N.W.2d 406, 408 (Minn.1994); Blue Water Corp., 336 N.W.2d at 282 . | 1 | 1 |
Milbrandt v. American Legion Post of Moragreen1 sentence1995See Milbrandt v. American Legion Post, 372 N.W.2d 702, 705 (Minn.1985) (refusing to recognize an equitable subrogation claim because it would upset the balance of the No-Fault Act). | 1 | 1 |
Rawson v. City of Omahagreen2 sentences1987Rawson v. City of Omaha, 212 Neb. 159 , 322 N.W.2d 381, 385 (1982). 1987Rawson v. City of Omaha, 212 Neb. 159 , 322 N.W.2d 381, 385 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ram Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rohde
green
1 sentence2025Co. v. Rohde, 820 N.W.2d 1 , 10–14 (Minn. 2012) (discussing an insurer’s right to pursue an equitable subrogation claim against an insured’s negligent tenant); First Nat’l Bank of Menahga v. Schunk, 276 N.W. 290 , 292– 93 (Minn. 1937) (discussing the right of a lender who paid off a senior mortgage on a property to be equitably subrogated to the rights of the senior mortgagee); Sucker v. Cranmer, 149 N.W. 16, 18 (Minn. 1914) (discussing the rights of a purchaser at a foreclosure sale who paid taxes on a property during the redemption period to be equitably 11 subrogated to the State’s right to | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Carl H. Peterson Co. v. Zero Estates
green
2 sentences2025In reaching this conclusion, the court of appeals relied on our decision in Peterson, which involved a mechanic’s lien foreclosure action in which a bank claimed priority through its mortgage under the doctrine of equitable subrogation. 261 N.W.2d at 347–48. 2025We held in Peterson that equitable subrogation was available “where one party has provided funds used to discharge another’s 10 obligations if (a) the party seeking subrogation has acted under a justifiable or excusable mistake of fact and (b) injury to innocent parties will otherwise result.” Id. at 348 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Vaccari
green
1 sentence2002Co. v. Vaccari, 310 Minn. 97, 99 , 245 N.W.2d 844 , 846 (1976). [2] The district court's dismissal with prejudice of all of Farmland's claims was inconsistent with its conclusion that Farmland could maintain a legal malpractice claim against Erstad & Riemer under the doctrine of equitable subrogation. [3] Given that the district court's order dismissed all of Farmland's claims, it is unclear what was accomplished by the court of appeals' reversal of the district court on this issue. [4] We have recognized an exception to this rule, extending an attorney's duty to a nonclient in a "narrow range | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Vaccari
green
1 sentence2002Co. v. Vaccari, 310 Minn. 97, 99 , 245 N.W.2d 844 , 846 (1976). [2] The district court's dismissal with prejudice of all of Farmland's claims was inconsistent with its conclusion that Farmland could maintain a legal malpractice claim against Erstad & Riemer under the doctrine of equitable subrogation. [3] Given that the district court's order dismissed all of Farmland's claims, it is unclear what was accomplished by the court of appeals' reversal of the district court on this issue. [4] We have recognized an exception to this rule, extending an attorney's duty to a nonclient in a "narrow range | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Atlanta International Insurance v. Bell
green
2 sentences2002After acknowledging that “there is no Minnesota law on this issue,” the district court relied exclusively on Atlanta International Insurance Co. v. Bell, 438 Mich. 512 , 475 N.W.2d 294 (1991), in which the Michigan Supreme Court applied the doctrine of equitable subrogation to allow a nonclient insurer to bring a legal malpractice claim against attorneys hired by the insurer to defend an action against the insured. 2002After acknowledging that “there is no Minnesota law on this issue,” the district court relied exclusively on Atlanta International Insurance Co. v. Bell, 438 Mich. 512 , 475 N.W.2d 294 (1991), in which the Michigan Supreme Court applied the doctrine of equitable subrogation to allow a nonclient insurer to bring a legal malpractice claim against attorneys hired by the insurer to defend an action against the insured. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Pine Island Farmers Coop v. Erstad & Riemer, P.A.
green
1 sentence2002Id. at 611 . *448 Farmland and Pine Island petitioned this court for review of the court of appeals' decision, and we granted the petition to consider two issues: first, whether Erstad & Riemer and Farmland had an attorney-client relationship; and second, if Erstad & Riemer and Farmland did not have an attorney-client relationship, whether Farmland can maintain a legal malpractice action against Erstad & Riemer under the doctrine of equitable subrogation. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Blue Water Corp., Inc. v. O'TOOLE
green
2 sentences2002See Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A., 520 N.W.2d 406, 408 (Minn.1994); Blue Water Corp., 336 N.W.2d at 282 . 2002See Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A., 520 N.W.2d 406, 408 (Minn.1994); Blue Water Corp., 336 N.W.2d at 282 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Suchy v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence1999Id. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Elliott v. Tainter
green
2 sentences1977Sucker v. Cranmer, 127 Minn. 124 , 149 N.W. 16 (1914); Elliott v. Tainter, 88 Minn. 377 , 93 N.W. 124 (1903); Emmert v. Thompson, 49 Minn. 386 , 52 N.W. 31 (1892). 1977Sucker v. Cranmer, 127 Minn. 124 , 149 N.W. 16 (1914); Elliott v. Tainter, 88 Minn. 377 , 93 N.W. 124 (1903); Emmert v. Thompson, 49 Minn. 386 , 52 N.W. 31 (1892). | 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.