Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Ylijarvi v. Brockphaler, 7 N.W.2d 314.

39 citing documents.

David Schindele, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Sela Roofing and Remodeling, Inc., d/b/a as Sela Gutter Connection, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Ylijarvi v. Brockphaler , 213 Minn. 385, 392, 319 (1942) (holding that whether a party has substantially performed under a contract is a question of fact).
Southtown Plumbing, Inc. v. Har-Ned Lumber Co. 493 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Southtown Plumbing, Inc. v. Har-Ned Lumber Co. 493 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
In re Stevenson Assocs., Inc., 777 F.2d 415, 421 (8th Cir.1985); Ylijarvi v. Brockphaler, 213 Minn. 385, 393
Apache Plaza, Ltd. v. Midwest Savings Ass'n 456 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Apache Plaza, Ltd. v. Midwest Savings Ass'n 456 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In Ylijarvi v. Brockphaler, 213 Minn. 385, 390 , the supreme court explained the doctrine of substantial performance: [Substantial performance means performance of all the essentials necessary to the full accomplishment of the purposes for which the thing contracted for has been constructed, except for some slight and unintentional d
Levin v. C.O.M.B. Co. 441 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1989
Levin v. C.O.M.B. Co. 441 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1989
Ylijarvi v. Brockphaler, 213 Minn. 385, 392
Steffl v. Roediger 406 N.W.2d 535 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Steffl v. Roediger 406 N.W.2d 535 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ylijarvi v. Brockphaler, 213 Minn. 385, 389-90
Voight v. Jones 404 N.W.2d 830 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Voight v. Jones 404 N.W.2d 830 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Ylijarvi v. Brockphaler, 213 Minn. 385 , the court discussed construction contracts and stated: The duty under a contract is full and complete performance.
Paving Plus, Inc. v. Professional Investment, Inc. 382 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Paving Plus, Inc. v. Professional Investment, Inc. 382 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Ylijarvi v. Brockphaler, 213 Minn. 385 , a case involving the drilling of a well, the supreme court discussed the contractor’s duty of substantial performance in building and construction contracts: For present purposes, it is sufficient to say that substantial performance means performance of all the essentials necessary to the full a
Material Movers, Inc. v. Hill 316 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1982
Material Movers, Inc. v. Hill 316 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1982
The general rule in building and construction contracts is that the duty to perform is satisfied by “substantial performance.” In Ylijarvi v. Brockphaler, 213 Minn. 385, 390 , this court stated the following partial definition of the term: [Substantial performance means performance of all the essentials necessary to the full accomplishment of the purposes for which the thing contracted for has been constructed, except for some slight and unintentional defect
Gess v. Sill 251 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1977
Gess v. Sill 251 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1977
In Ylijarvi v. Brockphaler, 213 Minn. 385, 390 , a case involving the drilling of a well, we discussed the contractor’s duty of substantial performance in building and construction contracts: “* * * For present purposes, it is sufficient to say that substantial performance means performance of all the -essentials necessary to the f
Larson Bros. Tiling v. Melton 235 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1975
Larson Bros. Tiling v. Melton 235 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1975
They rely principally upon Yli-jarvi v. Brockphaler, 213 Minn. 385
Henningson, Durham & Richardson v. Prochnow 477 P.2d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Industrial Rubber Applicators, Inc. v. Eaton Metal Products Co. 171 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 1969
Industrial Rubber Applicators, Inc. v. Eaton Metal Products Co. 171 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 1969
2 See, Ylijarvi v. Brockphaler, 213 Minn. 385 , 7 N. W. (2d) 314 .
Breza v. Thaldorf 149 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1967
Breza v. Thaldorf 149 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1967
5 Ylijarvi v. Brockphaler, 213 Minn. 385 , 7 N. W. (2d) 314 ; Schimmelpfennig v. Gaedke, 223 Minn. 542 , 27 N. W. (2d) 416 .
Tomlinson Lumber Sales, Inc. v. J. D. Harrold Co. 117 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1962
Tomlinson Lumber Sales, Inc. v. J. D. Harrold Co. 117 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1962
Nevertheless defendant contends plaintiff was a “willful transgressor” who may not have the benefit of the doctrine of substantial performance, and cites Ylijarvi v. Brockphaler, 213 Minn. 385 , 7 N. W. (2d) 314 , as controlling.
Tynan v. KSTP, INC. 77 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1956
Tynan v. KSTP, INC. 77 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1956
Stark v. Magnuson, 212 Minn. 167 , 2 N. W. (2d) 814 ; Ylijarvi v. Brockphaler, 213 Minn. 385 , 7 N. W. (2d) 314 .
Sward v. Nash 40 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1950
Sward v. Nash 40 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1950
1069; Groves v. John Wunder Co. 205 Minn. 163 , , 123 A. L. R. 502; Ylijarvi v. Brockphaler, 213 Minn. 385 , 7 N. W. (2d) 314 .
Schimmelpfennig v. Gaedke 27 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1947
Schimmelpfennig v. Gaedke 27 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1947
Ylijarvi v. Brockphaler, 213 Minn. 385 , 7 N. W. (2d) 314 ; Northwestern Marble & Tile Co. v. Swenson, 139 Minn. 365 , .
Knutson v. Lasher 18 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 1945
Knutson v. Lasher 18 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 1945
Ylijaryi v. Brockphaler, 213 Minn. 385 , 7 N. W. (2d) 314 ; Elliott v. Caldwell, 43 Minn. 357 , , 9 L. R. A, 52.
Park Construction Co. v. Independent School District No. 32 11 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1943
Park Construction Co. v. Independent School District No. 32 11 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1943
Ylijarvi v. Brockphaler, 213 Minn. 385 , 7 N. W. (2d) 314 .
Pelser v. Gingold 8 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 1943
Pelser v. Gingold 8 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 1943
Mehl v. Norton, 201 Minn. 203 , , 113 A. L. R. 1055; Ylijarvi v. Brockphaler, 213 Minn. 385 , 7 N. W. (2d) 314 .