Legal Opinion
Schumacher v. Ihrke
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided April 30, 1991No. C3-90-2178PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HUSPENI, Judge.
Appellants challenge the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of respondents arising from an action for tor-tious interference with contract. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellants Bruce and Susan Ihrke and respondents Ken and Mary Schumacher are neighboring farmers in Wabasha County, Minnesota. Elaine Parker owned 80 acres of land (Parker property) adjacent to the property owned by these two parties. Elaine Parker’s son, Russell, works part time for appellants and full time for a feed company in Plainview, Minnesota.
In 1986, Farm Credit Bank (FCB) foreclosed upon the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1965
- Thayer v. American Financial Advisers, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- United Wild Rice, Inc. v. NelsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Furlev Sales & Associates, Inc. v. North American Automotive Warehouse, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Royal Realty Co. v. LevinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Kjesbo v. RicksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1994
- Soap Co. v. Ecolab, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1994
- Bloom v. Hennepin CountyDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1992
- Howe v. City of St. CloudCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
- McDonough v. City of RosemountCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.