Cited by

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

148 citing documents.

National Union Fire Insurance v. Schwing America, Inc. 446 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
National Union Fire Insurance v. Schwing America, Inc. 446 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 44
Mashlan v. E.M. Trucks, Inc. 443 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Mashlan v. E.M. Trucks, Inc. 443 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
*228 “[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
Abraham v. Farmers Home Mutual Insurance Co. 439 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Abraham v. Farmers Home Mutual Insurance Co. 439 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45
Dise v. Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc. 428 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Dise v. Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc. 428 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45
Harvet v. Unity Medical Center, Inc. 428 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Harvet v. Unity Medical Center, Inc. 428 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Summary judgment has been described as 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
Rediske v. Johnson 415 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Rediske v. Johnson 415 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Summary judgment is a “blunt instrument” and “should be employed only where it is perfectly clear that no issue of fact is involved.” Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45
Williams v. Millward 412 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Williams v. Millward 412 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
“It is a well-established general rule that where 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
Kasson State Bank v. Haugen 410 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kasson State Bank v. Haugen 410 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45
Carpenter v. Vreeman 409 N.W.2d 258 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Carpenter v. Vreeman 409 N.W.2d 258 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 43 , (construction of ambiguous language is a determination of fact to be made after considering surrounding facts and circumstances).
Henry v. State 406 N.W.2d 608 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Henry v. State 406 N.W.2d 608 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45
Briggs Transportation Co. v. Second Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis 406 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Briggs Transportation Co. v. Second Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis 406 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
DISCUSSION Summary judgment has been described as 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
Rehabilitation Specialists, Inc. v. Koering 404 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Rehabilitation Specialists, Inc. v. Koering 404 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45
Pratt Ex Rel. Pratt v. University of Minnesota Affiliated Hospitals & Clinics 403 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Pratt Ex Rel. Pratt v. University of Minnesota Affiliated Hospitals & Clinics 403 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45
Jonathan v. Kvaal 403 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Jonathan v. Kvaal 403 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(quoting Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45 , ).
Empire State Bank v. Devereaux 402 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Empire State Bank v. Devereaux 402 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 44
Knezevich v. Dress 399 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Knezevich v. Dress 399 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45
McGonagle v. Johnson 399 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
McGonagle v. Johnson 399 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Guenther v. Austin Mutual Insurance Co. 398 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Guenther v. Austin Mutual Insurance Co. 398 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45
Albany Roller Mills, Inc. v. Northern United Feeds & Seeds, Inc. 397 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Poplinski v. Gislason 397 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Albany Roller Mills, Inc. v. Northern United Feeds & Seeds, Inc. 397 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 44
Poplinski v. Gislason 397 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
A summary judgment has been described as 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
Trobaugh v. Trobaugh 397 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Trobaugh v. Trobaugh 397 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 44
Sprangers v. Interactive Technologies, Inc. 394 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Sprangers v. Interactive Technologies, Inc. 394 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 44 , (citing Noreen v. Park Construction Co., 255 Minn. 187 , ).
Kelley v. Tracy Fire Department Relief Ass'n 390 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kelley v. Tracy Fire Department Relief Ass'n 390 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37
Marriage of Landwehr v. Landwehr 380 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Landwehr v. Landwehr 380 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 44 , (construction of ambiguous language of a contract is a question of fact where extrinsic evidence is received); Minn.R.Civ.P.
Eastern Aviation & Marine Underwriters, Inc. v. Gilbertson 379 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Eastern Aviation & Marine Underwriters, Inc. v. Gilbertson 379 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The trial court will grant a motion for summary judgment only where it is “perfectly clear that no issue of fact is involved.” Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45 , 144 M.W.2d 711, 716 (1966).