Legal Opinion

Wurdemann v. Hjelm

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided March 18, 1960No. 37,916PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Murphy, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order denying plaintiffs’ motion for amended findings or for a new trial. The trial court had found that certain agreements entered into between the plaintiffs’ assignors and defendant Jesmer Corporation were a lease and option to purchase and not an agreement for the purchase and sale of an interest in real estate. It further found, contrary to the contentions of the plaintiffs, that the lease and option were effectively terminated for breaches of several covenants contained in the lease and that the termination of the lease was not a result of an…

2Cases cited37 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Twin City Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
  2. Thompson v. CoeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1921
  3. Harding v. Ohio Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
  4. Shaughnessy v. EidsmoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1946
  5. In Re City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Hertz v. HertzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  2. Romain v. Pebble Creek PartnersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
  3. Marty H. Segelbaum, Inc. v. MW CAPITAL, LLCDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2009
  4. Ortendahl v. BergmannCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
  5. Rooney v. Dayton-Hudson Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1976

5 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