Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 302A.467 (2026)

Equitable Remedies

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If a corporation or an officer or director of the corporation violates a provision of this chapter, a court in this state may, in an action brought by a shareholder of the corporation, grant any equitable relief it deems just and reasonable in the circumstances and award expenses, including attorneys' fees and disbursements, to the shareholder.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases, 1986–2017 · leading case: Bolander v. Bolander, 703 N.W.2d 529 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bolander v. Bolander, 703 N.W.2d 529 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 36× “David and Dorothy denied Bruce's claims and counterclaimed for equitable relief under Minn.Stat. § 302A.467 for Bruce's violation of various provisions of the Minnesota Business Corporation Act, including §§ 302A.”

Isaacs v. Am. Iron & Steel Co., 690 N.W.2d 373 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 34× “John Isaacs appeals the summary-judgment dismissal of his claims for relief under Minn.Stat. §§ 302A.467 and .751 (2002) for improper and prejudicial conduct in violation of corporate bylaws.”

PJ Acquisition Corp. v. Skoglund, 453 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1990). · cites it 24× “Minn.Stat. § 302A.467 provides: If a corporation or an officer or director of the corporation violates a provision of this chapter, a court in this state may, in an action brought by a shareholder of the corporation, grant any equitable relief it deems just and reasonable in the…”

Advanced Commc'n Design, Inc. v. Follett, 615 N.W.2d 285 (Minn. 2000). · cites it 6× “id an unfair wealth transfer, maximum flexibility can be achieved by taking into account factors relevant to fair value, including whether the buying or selling shareholder has acted in a manner that is unfairly oppressive to the other or has reduced the value of the…”

Haley v. Forcelle, 669 N.W.2d 48 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Additionally, Minn.Stat. § 302A.467 provides that [i]f a corporation or an officer or director of the corporation violates a provision of this chapter, a court in this state may, in an action brought by a shareholder of the corporation, grant any equitable relief it deems just…”

U.S. Bank N. A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co., 802 N.W.2d 363 (Minn. 2011). · cites it 2× “Specifically, Minn.Stat. § 302A.467 provides: If a corporation or an officer or director of the corporation violates a provision of this chapter, a court [may] .”

Blohm v. Kelly, 765 N.W.2d 147 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “” Minn. Stat. § 302A.467 (2008). Blohm contends that he should be permitted to pursue an equitable remedy, such as an accounting.”

Black v. NuAire, Inc., 426 N.W.2d 203 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “243 interferes with the courts’ power to grant equitable relief under Minn.Stat. § 302A.467. We find no conflict between these two statutes.”

Behm v. John Nuveen & Co., Inc., 555 N.W.2d 301 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “He also cites Minn.Stat. § 302A.467 (1994), which provides equitable relief for violations of Minnesota corporate statutes.”

Westgor v. Grimm, 381 N.W.2d 877 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “3 Westgor contends that the $5,000 penalty and the attorney’s fees should be affirmed as an “equitable remedy” under Minn.Stat. § 302A.467 (1984). The supreme court, however, already ruled in this case that Westgor “has no individual cause of action because a right of action for…”

Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 765 N.W.2d 159 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “2005) (holding that where Minn.Stat. § 302A.467 (2004) provides that a district court may grant equitable relief, decision is discretionary), review dismissed (Minn.”

Foy v. Klapmeier, 992 F.2d 774 (8th Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “Because of the difficulty in determining the actual loss to JEK as a result of the usurpation of the Inland Cruiser line, the district court granted equitable relief to JEK (and thus indirectly to Foy) pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 302A.467, 5 by considering the Inland Cruiser line…”

Show all 16 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.