Legal Opinion

Lentz v. Pearson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided January 13, 1956No. 36,682PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Dell, Chief Justice.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Hennepin County denying plaintiff’s motion for amended findings or a new trial.

After discussions extending over a long period plaintiff and defendant, on January 2, 1948, entered into a partnership agreement in writing under the trade name of “Park Studio.” The partnership was formed to carry on a retail rug, carpeting, and home furnishing business at St. Louis Park. Plaintiff was then and still is employed' as a salesman for a wholesale carpeting firm with territory covering several states, including Minnesota. It was agreed…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Galson v. GalsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
  2. Behrens v. KruseSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
  3. Bjornstad v. Northern States Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1935
  4. Harding v. Texoleum Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1922

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Meagher v. KavliSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
  2. Otis Lodge, Inc. v. Commissioner of TaxationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1972
  3. Michael Bunker v. Kenneth Meshbesher Meshbesher & Spence, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1998
  4. Auge v. Fairchild Equip., Inc.District Court, D. Maine · 2019
  5. Auge v. Fairchild Equipment, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API