Legal Opinion

Bruggeman v. Jerry's Enterprises, Inc.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 15, 1999No. C9-98-212PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

LANCASTER, Justice.

The issue presented by this appeal is whether the merger doctrine applies to an agreement giving the seller the right to repurchase a parcel of real property if the buyer has not started development of the property within two years. The court of appeals, reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the buyer, concluded that the merger doctrine does not apply to agreements that are both a condition subsequent and collateral to the subsequently executed deed. We affirm.

On February 16, 1994, respondents, William L. Bruggeman and The Builders Wholesale,…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  2. Slocum v. BracySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
  3. Trapp v. GordonIllinois Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Knight v. McCainMississippi Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Fritz v. McGillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
  2. Drees Co. v. OsburgCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 2003
  3. Blanche v. 1995 Pontiac Grand Prix (VIN: 162WJ12M95F268403)Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
  4. JEM ACRES, LLC v. BrunoCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2009
  5. Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005

10 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