New Concept Confinement Tech. v. Kuecker

3 Citing cases

  1. Thimjon Farms P'ship v. First Int'l Bank & Trust

    2013 N.D. 160 (N.D. 2013)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that if leave to amend is not sought until after discovery closed and summary judgment docketed, amendment is futile unless supported by substantial evidence that would survive summary judgment motion

    See Langeland v. Farmers State Bank, 319 N.W.2d 26, 33 (Minn.1982) (holding defendant's redemption of real property was legal method of collecting debt and plaintiff had no claim for wrongful interference of contract); New Concept Confinement Tech. Feeders, Inc. v. Kuecker, 364 N.W.2d 450, 453 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (holding defendants had lawful justification to pursue debt owed and trial court properly dismissed claim of interference with contract). Thimjon and Hagemeister failed to show First International had an obligation to lend Northern Grain additional money after its line of credit matured. First International's refusal to extend credit also was legitimate based on First International's concerns regarding Northern Grain's solvency moving forward.

  2. Wilson v. Kvalsten

    No. C4-98-2031 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 20, 1999)   Cited 1 times
    Affirming attorney's fees award only as to third party, who settled claim before trial

    Id. Kvalsten argues that reasonable and lawful methods of debt collection cannot form the basis of a claim of tortious interference with contract, citing New Concept Confinement Tech. Feeders, Inc. v. Kuecker, 364 N.W.2d 450, 453 (Minn.App. 1985) (concluding that actions in pursuing debt were justified), review denied (Minn. May 31, 1985).

  3. Steichen v. First Bank Grand

    372 N.W.2d 768 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 10 times
    Affirming judgment against defendant for a breach of this statute as a matter of law where the notice prior to repossession was deficient

    The district court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and this court on appeal must view the evidence most favorably to the one against whom the motion was granted.New Concept Confinement Technology Feeders, Inc. v. Kuecker, 364 N.W.2d 450, 452 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985) (quoting Grondahl v. Bulluck, 318 N.W.2d 240, 242 (Minn. 1982)).