Legal Opinion

Settem v. Etter

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 9, 1952No. 35,819PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

Petition for certiorari to review an order denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 56, in an action to rescind a contract on the ground of fraud or, in the alternative, for damages.

The complaint alleges that defendant, while negotiating the sale of a restaurant to plaintiffs, induced plaintiffs to purchase by making certain representations as to his plans regarding the hours and manner of operation of a competing restaurant, knowing the representations to be false, but presenting them as truth in order to induce plaintiffs to rely upon them. For all practical…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Chapman v. DorseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
  2. Chapman v. DorseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
  3. Asplund v. BrownSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1938

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. United States v. New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, Tri-Continental Financial Corporation, A. C. Allyn and Company, Incorporated, American Transportation Enterprises, Inc., Equitable Securities Corporation, Carl M. Loeb, Rhoades & Co., the Robinson-Humphrey Company, Inc., and John W. Clarke & Co., Helene Glenmore v. John I. AhernCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1960
  2. Purdy v. NordquistSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1959
  3. In Re Estate and Guardianships of WilliamsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1959
  4. Pierce v. Foley Bros., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
  5. Overseas Commodities Corp., Inc. v. DockmanCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986

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