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.
6 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1898–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hughes v. Sinclair Marketing, Inc.green1 sentence1988In Hughes v. Sinclair Marketing, Inc., 389 N.W.2d 194, 199 (Minn.1986), the court affirmed an award of lost future profits, stating: The purpose behind limiting damages for common law misrepresentation to out-of-pocket loss is to avoid speculative damages and assure that the award is measured by the natural and proximate loss sustained by the defrauded party. * * * The court has recognized an exception to the general rule when out-of-pocket damages fail to return a party to the status quo. | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Citizens Agency of Madelia, Inc.green2 sentences1986See Lewis v. Citizens Agency of Madelia, Inc., 306 Minn. 194 , 235 N.W.2d 831 (1975) (return of premiums paid inadequately compensated an insured whose policy has been wrongfully terminated). 1986See Lewis v. Citizens Agency of Madelia, Inc., 306 Minn. 194 , 235 N.W.2d 831 (1975) (return of premiums paid inadequately compensated an insured whose policy has been wrongfully terminated). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Class a License of North Metro Harness, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015This court has recognized the principle that “an administrative agency has a well-established right to reopen, rehear, and redetermine [a] matter even after a determination has been made.” In re N. Metro Harness, 711 N.W.2d 129 , 135–36 (Minn. App. 2006) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. LaBarre
green
2 sentences1973State v. LaBarre, 292 Minn. 228 , 195 N. W. 2d 435 (1972). 1973State v. LaBarre, 292 Minn. 228 , 195 N. W. 2d 435 (1972). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Anderson v. Fielding
green
2 sentences1922Although this court has recognized the rule that a promise to. make repairs or to remedy a defect transfers the assumption of the risk of injury from the employe to the employer for only a reasonable time, yet it has also said that “a reasonable time within the meaning of this rule, is any period which does not preclude all reasonable expectations that the promise may be kept.” Anderson v. Fielding, 92 Minn. 42 , 99 N. W. 357 , 104 Am. 1922Although this court has recognized the rule that a promise to. make repairs or to remedy a defect transfers the assumption of the risk of injury from the employe to the employer for only a reasonable time, yet it has also said that “a reasonable time within the meaning of this rule, is any period which does not preclude all reasonable expectations that the promise may be kept.” Anderson v. Fielding, 92 Minn. 42 , 99 N. W. 357 , 104 Am. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Smith v. Munch
green
2 sentences1898Smith v. Munch, 65 Minn. 256 , 68 N. W. 19 . 1898Smith v. Munch, 65 Minn. 256 , 68 N. W. 19 . | 1 | 1898–1898 |
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.