Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 6.08 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
[Renumbered 16A.44]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1984–2004 · leading case: Bank Midwest, Minnesota, Iowa, N.A. v. Lipetzky, 674 N.W.2d 176 (Minn. 2004).
Bank Midwest, Minnesota, Iowa, N.A. v. Lipetzky, 674 N.W.2d 176 (Minn. 2004). “1983); see also 25 Eileen Roberts, Minnesota Practice— Real Estate Law § 6.08(b) (2003). I. The Trusts argue that the consent clause is not ambiguous and that the plain meaning of the word “transfer” includes a mortgage.”
Kiefer v. Ceridian Corp., 976 F. Supp. 829 (D. Minnesota 1997). “On July 31, 1992, McElvain sent Kotten another letter, seeking a “request for review of [Kotten’s] decision under Section 6.08(C) of the Plan document.” (Pis.”
Spaeth v. City of Plymouth, 344 N.W.2d 815 (Minn. 1984). “Sackman, supra, at § 6.08. Thus, we need not decide whether Spaeth has proved a taking under the standard set forth in McShane .”
— Minn. Stat. § 6.08(C) — 1 case
Kiefer v. Ceridian Corp., 976 F. Supp. 829 (D. Minnesota 1997). “On July 31, 1992, McElvain sent Kotten another letter, seeking a “request for review of [Kotten’s] decision under Section 6.08(C) of the Plan document.” (Pis.”
— Minn. Stat. § 6.08(b) — 1 case
Bank Midwest, Minnesota, Iowa, N.A. v. Lipetzky, 674 N.W.2d 176 (Minn. 2004). “1983); see also 25 Eileen Roberts, Minnesota Practice— Real Estate Law § 6.08(b) (2003). I. The Trusts argue that the consent clause is not ambiguous and that the plain meaning of the word “transfer” includes a mortgage.”
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.