Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.

Decided 2000-09-21

Cited by 164 later decision(s) in our corpus · see the citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

From the opinion

PAUL H. ANDERSON, Justice (concurring in part, dissenting in part). I concur in part and dissent in part. I agree with the majority’s conclusion that respondents have failed to state a claim for fraud. But I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that respondents failed to state a claim for breach of contract and promissory estoppel. The matter before us has been treated thro…

Read the full opinion (source) ↗


Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.