Legal Opinion

Risvold v. Gustafson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 19, 1940No. 32,211PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Loring, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order denying the plaintiff’s motion for amended findings or a new trial. We review the order insofar as it denies the motion for a new trial. The plaintiff, as a stockholder in the corporate defendant, sought in behalf of the corporation to recover from the individual defendants all of the capital stock of the Dahl Corporation, hereinafter referred to, or in lieu thereof its value, and for himself he sought the expense of prosecution of the suit, including attorneys’ fees.

The complaint charged the individual defendants with a conspiracy to defraud…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. United Zinc Companies v. HarwoodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
  2. City of Boston v. SimmonsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
  3. New York Trust Co. v. American Realty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1926
  4. Holman v. MooreMichigan Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Old Mortgage & Finance Co. v. Pasadena Land Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1928

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Diedrick v. HelmSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
  2. Wenner v. Gulf Oil Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
  3. Nienaber v. KatzOhio Court of Appeals · 1942
  4. Risvold Ex Rel. Cleary Hill Mines Co. v. GustafsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1941
  5. State, by Peterson v. AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1940

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API