Cited by

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

148 citing documents.

Woody v. Krueger 374 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Woody v. Krueger 374 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45
Blackburn, Nickels & Smith, Inc. v. Erickson 366 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 49 Health & Welfare Fund v. Krejec 366 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
INTERN. U. OF OPER. ENG. LOC. NO. 49 v. Krejec 366 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
INTERN. U. OF OPER. ENG. LOC. NO. 49 v. Krejec 366 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45
International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 49 Health & Welfare Fund v. Krejec 366 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45
Blackburn, Nickels & Smith, Inc. v. Erickson 366 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See, Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37
Dollander v. Rochester State Hospital 362 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Dollander v. Rochester State Hospital 362 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
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
Granell v. Veterans of Foreign Wars Milton Barber Post No. 3871 357 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Granell v. Veterans of Foreign Wars Milton Barber Post No. 3871 357 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
“[S]ummary judgment is a ‘blunt instrument' and * * * should be employed only where it is perfectly clear that no issue of fact is involved.” d at 339 (Minn.1981), citing Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45
Home Mutual Insurance Co. v. Snyder 356 N.W.2d 780 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Paske v. County of Dakota 356 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Paske v. County of Dakota 356 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37 , the Minnesota Supreme Court cautioned: Summary judgment is a “blunt instrument” and should not be employed to determine issues which suggest that questions be answered before the rights of the parties can be fairly passed upon.
Home Mutual Insurance Co. v. Snyder 356 N.W.2d 780 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
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
Petersen v. Dekalb Pfizer Genetics 354 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Petersen v. Dekalb Pfizer Genetics 354 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See e.g. Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 44
Eklund v. Vincent Brass and Aluminum Co. 351 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Eklund v. Vincent Brass and Aluminum Co. 351 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
“Under such circumstances the trial court should allow the parties a full opportunity to present evidence of facts and circumstances and conditions surrounding its execution and the conduct of the parties relevant thereto.” Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45 , , .716 (1966).
Nord v. Herreid 305 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1981
Nord v. Herreid 305 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1981
The care with which an inquiry required by Rule 56.03 should be conducted was emphasized by this court in Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37
Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc. 278 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1979
Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc. 278 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1979
v. Midwest Center, Inc., 306 Minn. 352, 356 , Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45
Republic National Life Insurance Co. v. Lorraine Realty Corp. 279 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 1979
Republic National Life Insurance Co. v. Lorraine Realty Corp. 279 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 1979
Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 44
Matter of Turners Crossroad Development Co. 277 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 1979
Matter of Turners Crossroad Development Co. 277 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 1979
Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45
Stephenson v. Martin 259 N.W.2d 467 Minn. 1977
Stephenson v. Martin 259 N.W.2d 467 Minn. 1977
As we stated in Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 43 , — “ * * * We cannot assume that the parties intended to enter into a contract which was unjust or that either party assumed that he would secure an advantage not clearly expressed in its terms.” Accordingly, the intention to waive their right of subrogation is reasonably to be inferred
Larson v. INDEPENDENT SCH. DIST. NO. 314, BRAHAM 252 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 1977
Larson v. INDEPENDENT SCH. DIST. NO. 314, BRAHAM 252 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 1977
Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37
Vermes v. American District Telegraph Co. 251 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1977
Vermes v. American District Telegraph Co. 251 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1977
Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37 , Telex Corp. v. Balch, 382 F. 2d 211 (8 Cir. 1967); Restatement, Contracts 2d, § 239.
Midway Center Associates v. Midway Center, Inc. 237 N.W.2d 76 Minn. 1975
Midway Center Associates v. Midway Center, Inc. 237 N.W.2d 76 Minn. 1975
Donnay v. Boul-ware, 275 Minn. 37
Security Mutual Casualty Company v. Luthi 226 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1975
Security Mutual Casualty Company v. Luthi 226 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1975
2 Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37 , Koch v. Han-Shire Investments, Inc. 273 Minn. 155
Vang v. Mount 220 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1974
Vang v. Mount 220 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1974
3 Where the language of a writing is *401 ambiguous, “resort may be had to extrinsic evidence, and construction then becomes a question of fact unless such evidence is conclusive.” Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 44
Lowry Hill Properties, Inc. v. Ashbach Construction Co. 194 N.W.2d 767 Minn. 1971
Lowry Hill Properties, Inc. v. Ashbach Construction Co. 194 N.W.2d 767 Minn. 1971
1 See, also, City of Coon Rapids v. Suburban Engineering, Inc. 283 Minn. 151, 157 , Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 45 , and Ahlm v. Rooney, 274 Minn. 259
Kehne Electric Co. v. Steenberg Construction Co. 177 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1970
Kehne Electric Co. v. Steenberg Construction Co. 177 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1970
See, Paul W. Abbott, Inc. v. Axel Newman Heating & Plumbing Co. Inc. 282 Minn. 493, 495 , 166 N. W. (2d) 323, 325 ; Donnay v. Voulware, 275 Minn. 37 , 144 N. W. (2d) 711 ; Lundstrom Const. Co. v. Dygert, 254 Minn. 224 , 94 N. W. (2d) 527 ; Kane v. Oak Grove Co. 221 Minn. 500 , 22 N. W. (2d) 588 .
City of Coon Rapids v. Suburban Engineering, Inc. 167 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1969
City of Coon Rapids v. Suburban Engineering, Inc. 167 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1969
Couillard v. Charles T. Miller Hospital, Inc. 253 Minn. 418 , 92 N. W. (2d) 96 ; Anderson v. Twin City Rapid Transit Co. 250 Minn. 167 , 84 N. W. (2d) 593 ; Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37 , 144 N. W. (2d) 711 .
Whisler v. Findeisen 160 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 1968
Whisler v. Findeisen 160 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 1968
Sprague v. Vogt (8 Cir.) 150 F. (2d) 795; Donnay v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37 , 144 N. W. (2d) 711 ; Clark, The Summary Judgment, 36 Minn. L. Rev. 567 ; 10 Dunnell, Dig.