Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Telex Corporation v. Data Products Corporation, 135 N.W.2d 681.

68 citing documents.

Arch Apartment Management L.L.C., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Corp. , (stating that “it is not for this court to create or add exceptions to the contract or to remake it [on] behalf of either of the contracting parties”); see also Equitable Holding Co. v. Equitable Bldg.
Streambend Properties II, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Corp., –87 (Minn. 1965) (stating that “where the written language of an instrument applied to the subject is clear, whether it be a statute, constitution, or contract, it is neither necessary nor proper in construing it to go beyond the wording of the instrument itself”).
East View Information Services, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Telex Corp. v. Data Products Corp., 271 Minn. 288, 295
Builders Commonwealth, Inc. v. Jason Morgan Worsfold Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Builders Commonwealth, Inc. v. Jason Morgan Worsfold Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Corp., 271 Minn. 288, 293
Savela v. City of Duluth 806 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2011
Savela v. City of Duluth 806 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2011
Corp., 271 Minn. 288, 294-95 , -87 (1965)).
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord's, Inc. 764 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 2009
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord's, Inc. 764 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 2009
Telex Corp. v. Data Products Corp., 271 Minn. 288, 294-95 , -87 (1965); Anderson v. Twin City Rapid Transit Co., 250 Minn. 167, 178 , Grimes v. Toensing, 201 Minn. 541, 545 , 277 N.W.
River Valley Truck Center, Inc. v. Interstate Companies 704 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 2005
Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Chisholm v. Norman 696 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 2005
Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Chisholm v. Norman 696 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 2005
Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 351 , Telex Corp. v. Data Products Corp., 271 Minn. 288, 291 , -85 (1965).
Travertine Corp. v. Lexington-Silverwood 683 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2004
Travertine Corp. v. Lexington-Silverwood 683 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2004
Telex Corp. v. Data Products Corp., 271 Minn. 288, 295 , Anderson v. Twin City Rapid Transit Co., 250 Minn. 167, 178 , Grimes v. Toensing, 201 Minn. 541, 545 , 277 N.W.
Peggy Rose Revocable Trust v. Eppich 640 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2002
Peggy Rose Revocable Trust v. Eppich 640 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2002
See Telex Corp. v. Data Products Corp., 271 Minn. 288, 295
In RE MARRIAGE OF BRODSKY v. Brodsky 639 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In RE MARRIAGE OF BRODSKY v. Brodsky 639 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
But “courts cannot remake contracts or imply provisions through judicial interpretation.” In re Stevenson Associates, Inc. 777 F.2d 415, 421 (8th Cir.1985) (citing Telex Corp. v. Data Products, 271 Minn. 288, 295 , ).
Improvement of County Ditch No. 86, Branch 1, County of Blue Earth v. Phillips 614 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Improvement of County Ditch No. 86, Branch 1, County of Blue Earth v. Phillips 614 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Corp., 271 Minn. 288, 295 , -87 (1965) (if a contract is clear, “it is neither necessary nor proper in construing it to go beyond the wording of the instrument itself’).
Kauffman Stewart, Inc. v. Weinbrenner Shoe Co. 589 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Kauffman Stewart, Inc. v. Weinbrenner Shoe Co. 589 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Corp., 271 Minn. 288, 295 , -87 (1965).
Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 522 Minn. 1990
Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 522 Minn. 1990
Corp., 271 Minn. 288, 293 , , *526 685 (1965).
Empire State Bank of Cottonwood v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 441 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Empire State Bank of Cottonwood v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 441 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Further, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that “where there is no ambiguity in the written terms of a contract, construction by a trial court or an appellate court is inappropriate.” North Star Center, Inc. v. Sibley Bowl, Inc., 295 Minn. 424, 426 , (citing The Telex Corp. v. Data Products Corp., 271 Minn. 288 , ).
Knut. Co. v. Knutson Construction Co. 433 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Knut. Co. v. Knutson Construction Co. 433 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Telex Corp. v. Data Products Corp., 271 Minn. 288
Mutsch v. Rigi 430 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Mutsch v. Rigi 430 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that “where there is no ambiguity in the written terms of a contract, construction by a trial court or an appellate court is inappropriate.” North Star Center, Inc. v. Sibley Bowl, Inc., 295 Minn. 424, 426 , (citing The Telex Corp. v. Data Products Corp., 271 Minn. 288
American Warehousing & Distributing, Inc. v. Michael Ede Management, Inc. 414 N.W.2d 554 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
American Warehousing & Distributing, Inc. v. Michael Ede Management, Inc. 414 N.W.2d 554 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Telex Corp. v. Data Products Corp., 271 Minn. 288, 293 , (quoting Country Club Oil Co. v. Lee, 239 Minn. 148, 151-52 , ).
Gunhus, Grinnell v. Engelstad 413 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Gunhus, Grinnell v. Engelstad 413 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Telex Corp. v. Data Products Corp., 271 Minn. 288, 295
Protective Insurance Co. v. Transamerica Insurance Co. 394 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Protective Insurance Co. v. Transamerica Insurance Co. 394 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Co., (citing Telex Corp. v. Data Products Corp., 271 Minn. 288, 291 , ).
Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States 389 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1986
Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States 389 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1986
Telex Corp. v. Data Products Corp., 271 Minn. 288, 291
Clapp v. Haferman Water Conditioning, Inc. 380 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Clapp v. Haferman Water Conditioning, Inc. 380 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“A contract is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to more than one construction.” The Telex Corp. v. Data Products Corp., 271 Minn. 288, 291 , (quoting Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Morse, 261 Minn. 259, 263 , ).
Hanson v. Moeller 376 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hanson v. Moeller 376 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Telex Corp. v. Data Products Corp., 271 Minn. 288, 291 , -85 (1965) (quoting Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Morse, 261 Minn. 259, 263
Brown v. Weeres Industries, Inc. 375 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Brown v. Weeres Industries, Inc. 375 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Telex Corp. v. Data Products Corp., 271 Minn. 288, 295
In re the Guardianship of Steinhaus 349 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In re the Guardianship of Steinhaus 349 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Telex Corp. v. Data Products Corp., 271 Minn. 288
Whitehill v. Seaway Port Authority of Duluth 349 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Whitehill v. Seaway Port Authority of Duluth 349 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Construing the Bond Resolution as a whole and the supporting documents, as we are required to do, see, e.g., Telex Corp. v. Data Products Corp., 271 Minn. 288, 293 , we do not find the terms of the contract to be ambiguous.
Anda Construction Co. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, Duluth 349 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Anda Construction Co. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, Duluth 349 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
“[I]t is not for this court to create or add exceptions to the contract or to remake it in behalf of either of the contracting parties.” Telex Corp. v. Data Products Corp., 271 Minn. 288, 295