Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Olson v. Synergistic Technologies Business Systems, Inc.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 28, 2001No. C0-99-769, C8-99-776Published

1ConcurrenceRussell A. Anderson, Justice

I concur in the result but write separately because I believe that a legal action with the attendant right to a jury trial is consistent with promissory estoppel.

The right to a jury trial is inviolate for those actions and issues that were known at common law in the Territory of Minnesota when the Minnesota Constitution was adopted in 1857. See Minn. Const, art. I, § 4; Rognrud v. Zubert, 282 Minn. 430, 433, 165 N.W.2d 244, 247 (1969); Whallon v. Bancroft, 4 Minn. 109 (Gil. 70) (1860). The general rule for determining whether an action is legal, as opposed to equitable, is set forth in Morton…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
  2. Merex A.G. Merex Corporation and Peter C. Lachmann v. Fairchild Weston Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
  3. Del Hayes & Sons, Inc. v. MitchellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  4. Christensen v. Minneapolis Municipal Employees Retirement BoardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
  5. Welborn v. DixonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1904

20 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