Legal Opinion

Brooksbank v. Anderson

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 8, 1998No. C2-98-391PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ANDERSON, Judge.

Respondent James Brooksbank brought an action against appellant Harlan Anderson to enforce a guarantee agreement. The district court held that a 1996 agreement was valid and enforceable, and, therefore, found in favor of respondent. This appeal is from a judgment awarding respondent $86,869.95. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

FACTS

In 1984, appellant Harlan Anderson and respondent James Brooksbank formed a corporation, Total Mix Ration, Inc., for the purpose of developing, producing, and marketing a device for mixing feed for farm animals. Each owned…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Thiele v. StichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  2. Frost-Benco Electric Ass'n v. Minnesota Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
  3. Roberge v. Cambridge Cooperative Creamery Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
  4. Harrington v. HarringtonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Estrada v. HansonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1943

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Bob Acres, LLC v. Schumacher Farms, LLCCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2011
  2. Powell v. MVE Holdings, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
  3. Adedipe v. U.S. Bank, National Ass'nDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2014
  4. AZOX L.L.C. v. Bloom International Realty, L.L.C.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2021
  5. Brooksbank v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1998

1 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