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.
7 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Padco, Inc. v. Kinney & Langegreen2 sentences2016See Padco, Inc. v. Kinney & Lange, 444 N.W.2d 889, 891 (Minn. App. 1989) (holding that a complaint alleging the elements of a legal-malpractice claim sufficiently alleged the elements of a breach-of- fiduciary-duty claim), review denied (Minn. Nov. 15, 1989). 2016See Padco, Inc. v. Kinney & Lange, 444 N.W.2d 889, 891 (Minn. App. 1989) (noting in a legal-malpractice claim, that a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim includes the same elements as a negligence claim). | 4 | 4 |
Raske v. Gavingreen1 sentence2024Ass’n, 934 N.W.2d 319 , 327 (Minn. 2019). “[Proximate c]ause exists when[,] but for the [the actor’s breach], the loss would not have occurred; or, alternatively, the loss must result directly from the tortious conduct.” Raske v. Gavin, 438 N.W.2d 704, 706 (Minn. App. 1989), rev. denied (Minn. June 21, 1989). | 1 | 1 |
Evans v. Blesigreen1 sentence2014The 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 | 1 | 1 |
Pedro v. Pedrogreen2 sentences2014The law imposes upon the participants in a fiduciary relationship the “highest standards of integrity and good faith in their dealings with each other.” Pedro v. Pedro, 489 N.W.2d 798, 801 (Minn. App. 1992) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct. 20, 1992). 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 | 1 | 1 |
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 | 1 | 1 |
Hudson v. Snyder Body, Inc.green1 sentence2014See Padco, 7 Inc. v. Kinney & Lange, 444 N.W.2d 889, 891 (Minn. App. 1989) (stating that elements of a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim are the same as the elements of a negligence claim), review denied (Minn. Nov. 15, 1989); see also Hudson v. Snyder Body, Inc., 326 N.W.2d 149, 157 (Minn. 1982) (stating elements of a negligence claim). | 1 | 1 |
Gunderson v. Alliance of Computer Professionals, Inc.green1 sentence2014The 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 | 1 | 1 |
Westgor v. Grimmgreen1 sentence2001Westgor v. Grimm, 318 N.W.2d 56, 59 (Minn.1982) (quoting Warner v. E.C. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McIntire v. State
green
1 sentence2001This argument fails outright for two reasons: (1) issues not raised or argued in an appellant’s brief cannot be revived in a reply brief, McIntire v. State, 458 N.W.2d 714 , 717 n. 2 (Minn.App.1990), revieiv denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 1990); and (2) immunity is not an issue for the jury, but a legal question to be decided by the court in the first instance. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Wessin v. Archives Corp.
green
1 sentence1999Id. at 386 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.