Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Donnay v. Boulware, 144 N.W.2d 711.

148 citing documents.

Kimberly Hamson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Summary judgment is a “blunt instrument,” and “should be employed only where it is perfectly clear that no issue of fact is involved.”
Allan N. Anderson, Jr., et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Minn. 2023
Shawnae Feltus, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
However, “summary judgment is not appr opriate where the terms of a c ontract are at issue and any of its provisions are ambiguous or unclear.”
Windcliff Association, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Scot A. Lacek, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Katie Aase, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Summary judgment is a “blunt instrument,” and “should be employed only where it is perfectly clear that no issue of fact is involved.”
R&S Crossing, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Dykes, d at 582; see also Donnay v. Boulware , 716 (Minn. 1966) (“It is generally recogniz ed that summary judgment is not appropriate where the terms of a contract are at issue and any of its provisions are ambiguous or uncertain.”).
PET Enterprises and Motortech, Inc., et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
When we review extrinsic evidence to determine the parties’ intent, construction “becomes a question of fact unless such evidence is conclusive.” Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 44
Singh Hospitality, Inc. v. North American Partners, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Singh Hospitality, Inc. v. North American Partners, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
However, “summary judgment is not appropriate where the terms of a contract are at issue and any of its provisions are ambiguous or unclear.” Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45, d 711, 716 (1966).
Anchor Bank, N. A. v. Matthew L. Gulbransen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Anchor Bank, N. A. v. Matthew L. Gulbransen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[W]here the intention of the parties may be gained wholly from the writing, the construction of the contract is for the court.” Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 44
Jeffrey Apitz v. Terry Hopkins 863 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeffrey Apitz v. Terry Hopkins 863 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
.”); Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45, (“It is generally recognized that summary judgment is not appropriate when the terms of a contract are at issue and any of its provisions are ambiguous or unclear.”).
In re the Marriage of: David Lee Christensen v. Kathryn Florence Kladek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: David Lee Christensen v. Kathryn Florence Kladek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 44
City of Maple Grove v. Marketline Construction Capital, LLC 802 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
City of Maple Grove v. Marketline Construction Capital, LLC 802 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
But when the terms are ambiguous, “resort may be had to extrinsic evidence, and construction then becomes a question of fact.” Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 44
Carlson v. Sala Architects, Inc. 732 N.W.2d 324 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Carlson v. Sala Architects, Inc. 732 N.W.2d 324 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Minnesota Teamsters Public & Law Enforcement Employees Union, Local 320 v. County of St. Louis 726 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Minnesota Teamsters Public & Law Enforcement Employees Union, Local 320 v. County of St. Louis 726 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45
Hickman v. SAFECO Insurance Co. of America 695 N.W.2d 365 Minn. 2005
Hickman v. SAFECO Insurance Co. of America 695 N.W.2d 365 Minn. 2005
Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 44
Bank Midwest, Minnesota, Iowa, N.A. v. Lipetzky 674 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 2004
Bank Midwest, Minnesota, Iowa, N.A. v. Lipetzky 674 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 2004
Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45
Rhee v. Golden Home Builders, Inc. 617 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Rhee v. Golden Home Builders, Inc. 617 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45 , (citation omitted).
Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 616 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 2000
Smith v. Woodwind Homes, Inc. 605 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Smith v. Woodwind Homes, Inc. 605 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See PMH Properties v. *424 Nichols, (stating “when the evidence is conflicting, whether an agency relation exists presents a question of fact for the trier of fact”) (citations omitted); see also Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45 , (holding summary judgment “should be employed only where it is perfectly clear that no issue of fact is involved, and that it is not desirable nor necessary to inquire into facts which might clarify the application of the law”).
Estate of Peterson 579 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Delano Community Development Corp. 571 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1997
Emerick on Behalf of Howley v. Sanchez 547 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Emerick on Behalf of Howley v. Sanchez 547 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45
Katzner v. Kelleher Construction 535 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Katzner v. Kelleher Construction 535 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45
Wolfson v. City of St. Paul 535 N.W.2d 384 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Wolfson v. City of St. Paul 535 N.W.2d 384 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(citing Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 44 , ).
Steinhilber v. Prairie Pine Mutual Insurance Co. 533 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Steinhilber v. Prairie Pine Mutual Insurance Co. 533 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Summary judgment is a “blunt instrument” which should be employed “only where it is perfectly clear that no issue of fact is involved.” (quoting Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45 , ), pet.
Drager Ex Rel. Gutzman v. Aluminum Industries Corp. 495 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Drager Ex Rel. Gutzman v. Aluminum Industries Corp. 495 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In reviewing the issues presented in this appeal, we are mindful that summary judgment is a blunt instrument to be employed “only where it is perfectly clear that no issue of fact is involved.” Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45 , pet.
Modern Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Loop Belden Porter 493 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Modern Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Loop Belden Porter 493 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45
Larsen v. Northwestern National Life Insurance Co. 463 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Larsen v. Northwestern National Life Insurance Co. 463 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 44
Foley v. WCCO Television, Inc. 449 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1989

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by