Legal Opinion

Salminen v. Frankson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 30, 1976No. 46458PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Rogosheske, Justice.

In plaintiff’s action to compel defendant, Helia A. Frankson, to convey real estate pursuant to the claimed timely exercise of an option to purchase, this single issue is raised: Whether, absent any provision in the option agreement, written notice of the exercise of the option received 2 days after the last day on which the agreement provides that notice must be given is effective if it was mailed on the last day of the option period. Plaintiff, Michael A. Salminen, Sr., appeals from the trial court’s determination that it was not effective until received by defendant…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1967
  2. Franklin v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
  3. Wick v. MurphySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1952
  4. Nafstad v. MerchantSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  5. Hoban v. HudsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Andrews v. BlakeArizona Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Smith v. Hevro Realty Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
  3. Katzner v. Kelleher ConstructionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
  4. Travelers Insurance Co. v. TufteCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
  5. Tippett v. DalyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009

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