Legal Opinion

Mulvihill v. Finseth

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 9, 1986No. C1-86-1199PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

POPOVICH, Chief Judge.

This appeal is from a summary judgment in favor of respondents denying summary judgment to appellants. Appellants contend the trial court erred in granting respondents’ motion because (1) genuine issues of material fact exist and (2) respondents are not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. We disagree and affirm.

FACTS

On October 16, 1980, respondents purchased a parcel of land from appellants pursuant to a contract for deed. The contract for deed contained a clause allowing appellants the option of repurchasing a portion of the land. The option clause…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Sauter Ex Rel. Benson v. SauterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
  2. Roehrs v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
  3. Schuchard v. St. Anthony & Dakota Elevator Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
  4. In Re Application of Berman v. KierenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
  5. Gallager v. NelsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Loppe v. SteinerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API