Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cederstrand v. Lutheran Brotherhood, 117 N.W.2d 213.

141 citing documents.

Joseph Dixon, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
When determining whether the parties have entered into a valid and enforceable contract, courts evaluate the objective conduct of 5 the parties and their “words spoken or written.”
Amber Brown, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Minn. 2022
Whether mutual assent exists is “judged objectively, not subjectively.”
Myth Live II, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(stating that whether parties, by words or conduct, formed a contract should be judged objectively, not subjectively).
Danielle DePietto, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Bradley Hammond, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Minn. 2021
See, e.g., Pine River, d at 626–27; (stating in the context of a unilateral employment contract that we look at the entire context of the employment relationship and the words said by the employer and that we decipher the parties’ intent “ ‘by applying the words used, 21 with all their reasonable implications, to the subject matt
Taofeek Ishola, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Capital One Bank (USA), NA, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Whether a contract is formed is judged objectively by the conduct of the parties, not by their subjective intent.” Crince v. Kulzer , d 55, 57 (Minn. App. 1993) ().
A18-0391 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Cederstrand v. Lutheran B hd., 224 (Minn. 1962) ( holding that no reasonable fact -finder could conclude that employer’s promise to give employees “job[s] as long as they wished until retirement” was 10 sufficient to creat e mo re than at -will employment).
Ellis Olkon, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Burt v. Rackner, Inc. 902 N.W.2d 448 Minn. 2017
Sanchez v. Dahlke Trailer Sales, Inc. 897 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2017
Mark Lanterman v. Michael Roman Afremov Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mark Lanterman v. Michael Roman Afremov Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Whether mutual assent exists is tested under an objective standard.” Id.; see also Cederstrand v. Lutheran Bhd., 263 Minn. 520, 532, d 9 213, 221 (1962) (explaining that “[e]xpressions of mutual assent, by words or conduct, must be judged objectively, not subjectively.”).
Capital One Bank, N. A. v. Don T. Mashak Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Capital One Bank, N. A. v. Don T. Mashak Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Cederstrand v. Lutheran Bhd., 263 Minn. 520, 531-32, -21 (1962) (stating that valid contract requires consideration, acceptance, and a manifestation of mutual assent).
Dukowitz v. Hannon Security Services 841 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 2014
SCI Minnesota Funeral Services, Inc. v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp. 795 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 2011
SCI Minnesota Funeral Services, Inc. v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp. 795 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 2011
Cederstrand v. Lutheran Bhd., 263 Minn. 520, 532 , (“Expressions of mutual assent, by words or conduct, must be judged objectively, not subjectively.”).
Coursolle v. EMC Insurance Group, Inc. 794 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Coursolle v. EMC Insurance Group, Inc. 794 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Credit Union, Cederstrand v. Lutheran Bhd., 263 Minn. 520, 532 , Rost, d at 903 .
Alexandria Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. Rost 756 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Thomas B. Olson & Associates, P.A. v. Leffert, Jay & Polglaze, P.A. 756 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Thomas B. Olson & Associates, P.A. v. Leffert, Jay & Polglaze, P.A. 756 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(citing Cederstrand v. Lutheran Bhd., 263 Minn. 520, 532 , ).
Alexandria Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. Rost 756 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
at 227 , d at 209-10 (emphasis added) (quoting Cederstrand v. Lutheran Bhd., 263 Minn. 520 , ).
Commercial Associates, Inc. v. Work Connection, Inc. 712 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Commercial Associates, Inc. v. Work Connection, Inc. 712 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Cederstrand v. Lutheran Bhd., 263 Minn. 520, 532
Kvidera v. Rotation Engineering & Manufacturing Co. 705 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Kvidera v. Rotation Engineering & Manufacturing Co. 705 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Cederstrand v. Lutheran Bhd., 263 Minn. 520, 532
Hy-Vee Food Stores, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Health 705 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 2005
Hy-Vee Food Stores, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Health 705 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 2005
See Cederstrand v. Lutheran Brotherhood, 263 Minn. 520, 531 , Bergstrom v. Sambo’s Restaurants, Inc., 687 F.2d 1250, *186 1256 (8th Cir.1982) (applying Minnesota law); Restatement of Contracts (Second) § 17(1) (1988).
Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 2002
Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 2002
Traditionally, an “employer-employee relationship is terminable at the will of either; the employer can summarily dismiss the employee, the employee is under no obligation to remain at the job.” Cederstrand v. Lutheran Bhd., 263 Minn. 520, 532
Gunderson v. Alliance of Computer Professionals, Inc. 628 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Gunderson v. Alliance of Computer Professionals, Inc. 628 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See, e.g., Cedarstrand v. Lutheran Broth., 263 Minn. 520, 523 , (concluding that employer’s promise to give employees “job[s] as tong-as they wished until retirement” was insufficient to create more than at-will employment); Aberman, d at 771-772 (concluding that employer’s promise that “I will always take care of you, you will always be
Powell v. MVE Holdings, Inc. 626 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Powell v. MVE Holdings, Inc. 626 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Cederstrand v. Lutheran Bhd., 263 Minn. 520, 532
S O Designs USA, Inc. v. Rollerblade, Inc. 620 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
S O Designs USA, Inc. v. Rollerblade, Inc. 620 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See Cederstrand v. Lutheran Bhd., 263 Minn. 520, 521-22 , -21 (1962).
Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 616 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 2000
Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 616 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 2000
a unilateral contract permitting dismissal only for cause based on statements by the company president, made at a meeting of employees regarding a retirement program that “there would be no dismissals as long as people showed willingness to work and ability and wanting to learn” and that “there was chances [sic] for advancement and people could have a job as long as they wished until retirement.” 263 Minn. 520, 523
Gresser v. Hotzler 604 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Gresser v. Hotzler 604 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Cederstrand v. Lutheran Bhd., 263 Minn. 520, 532
Murray v. Minncor 596 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Murray v. Minncor 596 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
“[A] contract is a promise or set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy or the performance of which the law recognizes as a duty.” Cederstrand v. Lutheran Brotherhood, 263 Minn. 520, 529 , (citations omitted).
A.A. Metcalf Moving & Storage Co. v. North St. Paul-Maplewood-Oakdale Schools 587 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
A.A. Metcalf Moving & Storage Co. v. North St. Paul-Maplewood-Oakdale Schools 587 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In determining the existence of a contract, a party’s “outward manifestation of assent is determinative, rather than a party’s subjective intention.” see also Cederstrand v. Lutheran Bhd., 263 Minn. 520, 532 , (“Expressions of mutual assent, by words or conduct, must be judged objectively, not subjectively.”).
U.S. Sprint Communications Co. v. Commissioner 578 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 1998
US SPRINT COMM. v. Commissioner of Rev. 578 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 1998