Legal Opinion
Richfield Bank & Trust Co. v. Sjogren
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided July 16, 1976No. 45966PublishedCited by 113 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MacLaughlin, Justice.
Appellant, Richfield Bank and Trust Company, commenced this action to recover on a promissory note executed by respondents, Roger E. Sjogren and Anna Mae Sjogren. The respondents admitted execution of the note but affirmatively alleged that the transaction was induced by appellant’s fraudulent concealment of material information. A jury returned a special verdict in favor of respondents, and this appeal was taken from the denial of the bank’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. We affirm.
In April 1972 the respondents purchased a service route…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Klein v. First Edina National BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1972
- Peterson v. Idaho First National BankIdaho Supreme Court · 1961
- Milohnich v. First National Bank of Miami SpringsDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1969
- Newell v. RandallSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Thomas v. MurphySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by113 opinions
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust FundArizona Supreme Court · 2002
- Noble Systems Corp. v. Alorica Central, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2008
- Parker v. Columbia BankCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1992
- United Jersey Bank v. KenseyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1997
- L & H AIRCO, INC. v. Rapistan Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
108 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.