Logan v. Panuska
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
KELLY, Justice.
These cases both arise out of the same set of facts and raise the issue of whether or not equitable estoppel is a defense in an action for rescission of the sale of securities sold in violation of Minn.St.1971, c. 80, the Minnesota Blue Sky Law.1 We conclude *361that equitable estoppel is a defense and accordingly we reverse Logan v. Panuska and affirm Krueger v. Panuska.
Bradford’s Inc. operated a restaurant and on-sale liquor facility known as Bradford’s. The corporation was originally owned by Charles Howard and defendant Harold Pa-nuska. The shares which evidenced their…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Vercellini v. U. S. I. Realty Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Drees v. Minnesota Petroleum Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1933
- McCauley v. MichaelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
3Cited by18 opinions
- Specialized Tours, Inc. v. HagenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Go2net, Inc. v. FreeYellow.com, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2006
- Clapp v. PetersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Bond v. CharlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
- Hayden v. McDonaldCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1984
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.