Legal Opinion

Knipple v. Lipke

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 7, 1941No. 32,956PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Julius J. Olson, Justice.

This was an action to enforce stockholders’ liability. Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, judgment entered, and plaintiff appeals.

• The only question presented is whether the limitation provided by Mason St. 1940 Supp. § 8028, is conclusive against plaintiff upon the facts pleaded. The limiting proviso reads:

“provided that no action shall be commenced to collect the amount of any such assessment, unless commenced within two years after the insolvency of the corporation and the appointment of a receiver.”

Plaintiff concedes “that the two-year…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. United States v. WileySupreme Court of the United States · 1871
  2. Ganser v. GanserSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
  3. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. v. OlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
  4. Shearer v. ChristySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
  5. Willius v. AlbrechtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Sanchez v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
  2. Versluis v. Town of Haskell, Okl.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1946
  3. Leisure Dynamics, Inc. v. Falstaff Brewing Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  4. Witthuhn v. DurbahnSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
  5. Kuhnle v. SwedlundSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1945

2 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