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.
9 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1953–1999 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 |
|---|---|---|
Olson v. Tilghmangreen2 sentences1987In re Estate of Tilghman, 240 Minn. 494, 496 , 61 N.W.2d 743, 745 (1953). 1987In re Estate of Tilghman, 240 Minn. 494, 496 , 61 N.W.2d 743, 745 (1953). | 1 | 2 |
Turner v. Shirkgreen2 sentences1979In Turner v. Shirk, 49 Ill.App.3d 764, 766 , 7 Ill.Dec. 461, 463 , 364 N.E.2d 622, 624 (1977), the court, in ruling on the nature of a first right of refusal, declared that it “involves the creation of a privilege * * to buy only on the formulation of a desire by the owner to sell upon the terms and price at which the owner is willing to sell to a third party.” By entering into the first refusal agreement, Inglewood has in no way prejudiced Culligan’s rights. 1979In Turner v. Shirk, 49 Ill.App.3d 764, 766 , 7 Ill.Dec. 461, 463 , 364 N.E.2d 622, 624 (1977), the court, in ruling on the nature of a first right of refusal, declared that it “involves the creation of a privilege * * to buy only on the formulation of a desire by the owner to sell upon the terms and price at which the owner is willing to sell to a third party.” By entering into the first refusal agreement, Inglewood has in no way prejudiced Culligan’s rights. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anderson v. Twin City Rapid Transit Co.
green
2 sentences1984Anderson, 84 N.W.2d at 599 . 1984Anderson, 84 N.W.2d at 599 . | 2 | 1984–1984 |
Anker v. Little
green
1 sentence1999In this case, Minn.Stat. § 169.685, subd. 4 may produce a troubling result, but “our function is not to second guess, but to give effect to, the legislature’s will.” Anker, 541 N.W.2d at 338 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
In Re the Marriage of Tell v. Tell
green
2 sentences1986Nevertheless, this court applied the rule that “extra-judicial modifications of dissolution decrees without subsequent judicial approval are not valid.” Tell, 359 N.W.2d at 301 (citing Dent). 1986Nevertheless, this court applied the rule that "extra-judicial modifications of dissolution decrees without subsequent judicial approval are not valid." Tell, 359 N.W.2d at 301 (citing Dent ). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed District
green
2 sentences1985This issue was addressed by our supreme court in Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed District, 278 Minn. 1 , 153 N.W.2d 209 (1967) as follows: The purpose behind the creation of a rule which would disqualify public officials from participating in proceedings in a decision-making capacity when they have a direct interest in its outcome is to ensure that their decision will not be an arbitrary reflection of their own selfish interests. 1985This issue was addressed by our supreme court in Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed District, 278 Minn. 1 , 153 N.W.2d 209 (1967) as follows: The purpose behind the creation of a rule which would disqualify public officials from participating in proceedings in a decision-making capacity when they have a direct interest in its outcome is to ensure that their decision will not be an arbitrary reflection of their own selfish interests. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Beneke v. Estate of Beneke
green
2 sentences1953As stated in 71 C.J., Work and Labor, § 25: "* * * The presumption of gratuity finds its foundation in the reciprocal character of family duties and services, and where the services and duties between members of a family are so disproportionate as not to be in any true sense reciprocal, the presumption of gratuity does not apply and the one who has borne the greater burden may be entitled to recover compensation." In Minnesota a statement of the general rule regarding relatives living together as members of the same household has been laid down in Beneke v. Beneke, 119 Minn. 441, 445 , 138 N.W 1953As stated in 71 C.J., Work and Labor, § 25: "* * * The presumption of gratuity finds its foundation in the reciprocal character of family duties and services, and where the services and duties between members of a family are so disproportionate as not to be in any true sense reciprocal, the presumption of gratuity does not apply and the one who has borne the greater burden may be entitled to recover compensation." In Minnesota a statement of the general rule regarding relatives living together as members of the same household has been laid down in Beneke v. Beneke, 119 Minn. 441, 445 , 138 N.W | 1 | 1953–1953 |
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.