Legal Opinion

Truesdale v. Friedman

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided January 15, 1965No. 39171PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Nelson, Justice.

The action was brought by plaintiffs to recover damages for the alleged fraud of appellants-defendants in sales of gasoline to plaintiffs. Defendants are sellers and' distributors of petroleum products, Hyman J. Friedman, the individual defendant, being a stockholder and director of the corporate defendants.

Plaintiffs earlier moved this court to dismiss the appeal for the failure of defendants to print an adequate record or else to limit the appeal to those issues not involving the sufficiency of the evidence. This motion was denied, subject to the right of plaintiffs to renew…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Wildman Mfg. Co. v. Davenport Hosiery MillsTennessee Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Roberge v. Cambridge Cooperative Creamery Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
  3. Truslow Fulle, Inc. v. Diamond Bottling CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
  4. Phelps v. BensonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
  5. MacK Trucks, Inc. v. SundeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Soo Line Railroad Company v. Fruehauf CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1977
  2. Dailey v. Holiday Distributing CorporationSupreme Court of Iowa · 1967
  3. State v. GraySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  4. Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
  5. Daigle v. Ford Motor Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2010

12 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