Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd., 153 N.W.2d 281.

59 citing documents.

James Dennis Omwenga, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d at 581; see also Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd., (stating that “ where one party to a contract refuses to perform a substantial part of the contract the other party may rescind it ”).
Les Grumdahl Window & Siding LLC, A Minnesota Limited Liability Company v. Holly Brown, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Les Grumdahl Window & Siding LLC, A Minnesota Limited Liability Company v. Holly Brown, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd., (“Where several instruments are made part of one transaction, they will be read together and each will be construed with reference to the others .
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd., (“Where several instruments are made part of one 6 transaction, they will be read together and each will be construed with reference to the others .
David Anderson, et al., Plaintiffs, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But courts must also consider a contract’s “spirit and purpose” and “there can be no doubt that the court may look beyond the form into which the parties have cast their agreement.” Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd., 9 9 (Minn. 1967) (quotation omitted); see Liona Corp., N.V.
Glacial Plains Coop. v. Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co., LLLP 912 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 2018
Glacial Plains Coop. v. Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co., LLLP 912 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 2018
Comm'n of Hibbing , 296 Minn. 316 , , 285 (1973) (mutual rescission); Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd. , 278 Minn. 104 , , 290 (1967) (rescission as a result of material breach), so arguably the entire phrase indicates an intent for the contract to last in perpetuity.
Leslie Davis v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Leslie Davis v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd., 278 Minn. 104, 116–17, (noting grounds for contract rescission).
Contractors Edge, Inc. v. City of Mankato Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Contractors Edge, Inc. v. City of Mankato Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Where several instruments are made part of one transaction, they will be read together and each will be construed with reference to the others.” Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd., 278 Minn. 104, 114
Sterling State Bank v. Maas Commercial Properties, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Sterling State Bank v. Maas Commercial Properties, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd., 278 Minn. 104, 114, (“Where several instruments are made part of one transaction, they will be read together and each will be construed with reference to the others, although the instruments do not in terms refer to each other.”); Wm.
Roemhildt v. Kristall Development, Inc. 798 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Roemhildt v. Kristall Development, Inc. 798 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd,., 278 Minn. 104, 114 , (stating that “[w]here several instruments are made part of one transaction, they will be read together and each will be construed with reference to the others, although the instruments do not reference each other”).
Logan v. Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. 603 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Logan v. Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. 603 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd., 278 Minn. 104, 114 , -89 (1967) (stating that multiple instruments executed at the same time and for the same purpose are one contract); Lake-view Terrace Homeowners Ass’n v. Le Rivage, Inc., (stating that several instruments made at the same time and relating to the same subject
Mauer v. Kircher 587 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Mauer v. Kircher 587 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd., 278 Minn. 104, 115 , (concluding where explicit language indicates purpose different from what is thought to be document’s main purpose, language must be given plain meaning and cannot be overruled); cf. Minn.Stat.
Sterling Capital Advisors, Inc. v. Herzog 575 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Sterling Capital Advisors, Inc. v. Herzog 575 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Concepts, Inc. v. Irie Enters., Inc., (requiring court to resolve ambiguity against drafter of contract); Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd., 278 Minn. 104, 115 , (clinic that drafted all employment contracts at issue bore burden of making contract language clear and court would resolve any ambiguity against it).
Veerkamp v. Farmers Cooperative Creamery of Foreston, Minnesota 573 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Veerkamp v. Farmers Cooperative Creamery of Foreston, Minnesota 573 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd., 278 Minn. 104, 114 , (interpretation of unambiguous contract is question for court); see also A.J.
Mohrenweiser v. Blomer 573 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Mohrenweiser v. Blomer 573 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Servs., (this court reviews questions of law de novo); Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd., 278 Minn. 104, 114 , (interpretation of an unambiguous writing is question of law for court).
North Star Universal, Inc. v. Graphics Unlimited, Inc. 563 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
North Star Universal, Inc. v. Graphics Unlimited, Inc. 563 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd,., 278 Minn. 104, 114 , -89 (1967).
TJB Companies, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co. 504 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 1993
TJB Companies, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co. 504 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 1993
See Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd., 278 Minn. 104
Johnny's, Inc. v. Njaka 450 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Johnny's, Inc. v. Njaka 450 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marso v. Mankato Clinic, 278 Minn. 104, 116
Reliable Metal, Inc. v. Shakopee Valley Printing, Inc. 407 N.W.2d 684 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Reliable Metal, Inc. v. Shakopee Valley Printing, Inc. 407 N.W.2d 684 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd., 278 Minn. 104, 115
Dolphine Manufacturing, Inc. v. Tehaar 404 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Dolphine Manufacturing, Inc. v. Tehaar 404 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd., 278 Minn. 104, 115
Novus Equities Corp. v. Em-Ty Partnership 381 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1986
Novus Equities Corp. v. Em-Ty Partnership 381 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1986
E.g., Marso v. Mankato Clinic, 278 Minn. 104 , Wick v. Murphy, 237 Minn. 447
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
The court is to consider the “spirit and purpose of the contract, as well as its letter.” Beattie v. Product Design and Engineering, Inc., 293 Minn. 139, 147 , (quoting Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd., 278 Minn. 104 , ).
Hruska v. Chandler Associates, Inc. 372 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1985
Hruska v. Chandler Associates, Inc. 372 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1985
See also, Marso v. Mankato Clinic Ltd., 278 Minn. 104 , North Pac.
MTS CO. v. Taiga Corp. 365 N.W.2d 321 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
MTS CO. v. Taiga Corp. 365 N.W.2d 321 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd., 278 Minn. 104, 114-15 , -89 (1967).
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
370 n. 2 (Minn.1977); Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd., 278 Minn. 104 , Anchor Casualty Co. v. Bird Island Produce, Inc., 249 Minn. 137
Ortendahl v. Bergmann 343 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Ortendahl v. Bergmann 343 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd., 278 Minn. 104, 116
Collins Truck Lines, Inc. v. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission 274 N.W.2d 123 Minn. 1979
Collins Truck Lines, Inc. v. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission 274 N.W.2d 123 Minn. 1979
Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd., 278 Minn. 104, 115
Salminen v. Frankson 245 N.W.2d 839 Minn. 1976