Legal Opinion
Barton v. Moore
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided February 13, 1997No. C0-95-1248, C2-95-1249PublishedCited by 67 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
GARDEBRING, Justice.
What is the appropriate penalty for lending money under usurious terms in violation of Minn.Stat. § 334.011, subd. 1 (1996): forfeiture of interest only or voiding of the loan? We hold that loans determined to be usurious pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 334.011, subd. 1 are not therefore void, but only subject the lender to loss of interest.
We also affirm the court of appeals on its determination that the complaint at issue here alleged sufficient facts to put the defendants on notice that the lenders relied on a theory of piercing the corporate veil.
This action arises…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hibbing Education Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations BoardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
- Victoria Elevator Co. of Minneapolis v. Meriden Grain Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
- Rathbun v. WT Grant CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
- Northern States Power Co. v. FranklinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1963
- Elzie v. Commissioner of Public SafetySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by67 opinions
- Laura L. Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
- Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
- Martin Ex Rel. Hoff v. City of RochesterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
- Goeb v. TharaldsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
- Lorix v. Crompton Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
62 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.