Legal Opinion

Lamb v. Jordan

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 6, 1983No. C1-82-397PublishedCited by 59 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SIMONETT, Justice.

In this appeal we conclude the evidence does not justify a jury’s verdict finding that the defendant is indebted to plaintiff on a promissory note, and we reverse and remand for a new trial.

Plaintiff-respondent Horace A. Lamb sued defendant-appellant William E.' Jordan. In his complaint, Lamb alleged that he had sold his business to defendant Jordan and that Jordan had breached the purchase agreement in several respects, including the failure to pay a $41,000 promissory note. Plaintiff Lamb claimed that the note was for cash advances he had made to the defendant. The…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Conover v. Northern States Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
  2. Seidl v. Trollhaugen, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  3. LaValle v. Aqualand Pool Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  4. Bisher v. Homart Development Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
  5. Koenig v. LudoweseSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976

3Cited by59 opinions

  1. Diesen v. HessburgSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  2. Vangsness v. VangsnessCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
  3. M.L. v. MagnusonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
  4. Bruchas v. Preventive Care, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
  5. Brooks v. Doherty, Rumble & ButlerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992

54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API