Legal Opinion

Vacinek v. First National Bank of Pine City

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 15, 1987No. C1-87-743PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HUSPENI, Judge.

Appellants, Arthur and Barbara Vacinek, husband and wife, appeal from an order denying their motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. The jury, by special verdict, found that respondent made a false representation to appellants but that the misrepresentation was unintentional. The trial court upheld the jury verdict and ordered judgment against the Vacineks on their action for intentional misrepresentation. We affirm.

FACTS

In September 1982, Robert Ouradnik, a lifelong acquaintance of Arthur Vacinek, attempted to borrow money from respondent…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Klein v. First Edina National BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1972
  2. Jacobs v. Rosemount Dodge-Winnebago SouthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
  3. Stark v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United StatesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
  4. Miranovitz v. GeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Marriage of Kelly v. KellySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. First Security Bank of Utah N.A. v. Banberry Development Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Carlson v. Sala Architects, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2007
  3. First Security Bank of Utah N.A. v. Banberry Development Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1990
  4. In re: Group Health Plan LitigationDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2023
  5. R.J. Zayed v. Associated Bank, N.A.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019

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