Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Ryan v. Ryan, 193 N.W.2d 295.

52 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. 2022
Had she appeared, “she could have stated on the record what her intentions were with regard to the retirement.” D-10 Ryan, (citation omitted), quoted in Shirk, d at 522.
Myth Live II, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Ittel v. Pietig , (citing Ryan v. Ryan , (“It is well settled that a compromise and settlement of a lawsuit is contractual in nature.”)).
In re the Marriage of: Vicki Collette Sandberg, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(stating that “the vacation of stipulations is a matter resting largely in the discretion of the trial court, and its action will not be reversed unless it can be shown that the [district] court acted in such an arbitrary manner as to amount t o an abuse of discretion ”).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Still, wife contends that the district c ourt should have first determined whether a meeting of the minds occurred, citing Ryan v. Ryan
Jeremy J. Cobb, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Zahn Law Firm, P.A., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Ryan v. Ryan, 292 Minn. 52, 52-53, -97 (1971); see Eliseuson v. Frayseth , 290 Minn. 282, 288, d 685, 688 (1971) (concluding that the trial court has discretion to vacate a settlement through independent action or motion).
Elizabeth Rocco v. Imran Khan, and third party v. Patrick J. Eastwood, third party Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Elizabeth Rocco v. Imran Khan, and third party v. Patrick J. Eastwood, third party Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ryan v. Ryan, 292 Minn. 52, 52-53, -97 (1971); see Eliseuson v. Frayseth, 290 Minn. 282, 288, d 685, 688 (1971) (concluding that the trial court has discretion to vacate a settlement through independent action or motion).
In re the Marriage of: Thomas Erle Tornstrom v. Jennifer Lynn Tornstrom, n/k/a Jennifer Lynn Klemenhagen 887 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Thomas Erle Tornstrom v. Jennifer Lynn Tornstrom, n/k/a Jennifer Lynn Klemenhagen 887 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ryan v. Ryan, 292 Minn. 52, 55
Ryan Contracting Company v. O'Neill & Murphy, LLP 883 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 2016
Ryan Contracting Company v. O'Neill & Murphy, LLP 883 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 2016
Co., d 578, 581-82 (Minn. 2010); see also Ryan v. Ryan, 292 Minn. 52, 55, (noting that a settlement is contractual in nature).
Renee C. Kinzer v. CitiMortgage, Inc., Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, David Kinzer, Parmount Title, LLC, Kelly Potratz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Renee C. Kinzer v. CitiMortgage, Inc., Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, David Kinzer, Parmount Title, LLC, Kelly Potratz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To be binding, a settlement agreement “requires offer and acceptance so as to constitute a meeting of minds on the essential terms of the agreement.” Ryan v. Ryan, 292 Minn. 52, 55, (emphasis added).
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 813 N.W.2d 891 Minn. 2012
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 813 N.W.2d 891 Minn. 2012
Dykes, d at 581-82 ; see also Ryan v. Ryan, 292 Minn. 52, 55 , (noting that a settlement is contractual in nature).
Dykes v. Sukup Manufacturing Co. 781 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2010
Dykes v. Sukup Manufacturing Co. 781 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2010
A settlement agreement is a con *582 tract, Ryan v. Ryan, 292 Minn. 52, 55 , and we review the language of the contract to determine the intent of the parties, Valspar Refinish, Inc., v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Stroop v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 764 N.W.2d 384 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Stroop v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 764 N.W.2d 384 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See, e.g., Ryan v. Ryan, 292 Minn. 52, 55-56 , -98 (1971) (affirming grant of summary judgment compelling appellant to execute settlement, including mutual releases, previously agreed upon by appellant and respondent).
Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Properties, Inc. 743 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2008
Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Properties, Inc. 743 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2008
Ryan v. Ryan, 292 Minn. 52, 52-53 , -97 (1971); see Eliseuson v. Frayseth, 290 *272 Minn. 282, 288, (concluding that the trial court has discretion to vacate a settlement through independent action or motion).
Ittel v. Pietig 705 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Ittel v. Pietig 705 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Ryan v. Ryan, 292 Minn. 52, 55 , (noting that “[i]t is well settled that a compromise and settlement of a lawsuit is contractual in nature”).
Marriage of Clark v. Clark 642 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Clark v. Clark 642 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See Ryan v. Ryan, 292 Minn. 52, 55 , (noting settlement of lawsuit requires “a meeting of the minds on the essential terms of the agreement”).
Marriage of Shirk v. Shirk 561 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 1997
Marriage of Shirk v. Shirk 561 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 1997
Ryan v. Ryan, 292 Minn. 52, 55
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. National Chiropractic Mutual Insurance Co. 496 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. National Chiropractic Mutual Insurance Co. 496 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Ryan v. Ryan, 292 Minn. 52, 55 , pet.
In re Schwarze 417 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In re Schwarze 417 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Ryan v. Ryan, 292 Minn. 52
State Ex Rel. Crow Wing Environment Protection Ass'n v. City of Breezy Point 394 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State Ex Rel. Crow Wing Environment Protection Ass'n v. City of Breezy Point 394 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ryan v. Ryan, 292 Minn. 52
Marriage of Pekarek v. Wilking 380 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Pekarek v. Wilking 380 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ryan v. Ryan, 292 Minn. 52, 55
Peppin v. W.H. Brady Co. 372 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Peppin v. W.H. Brady Co. 372 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
It has been stated that the compromise and settlement of a lawsuit is contractual in nature, Ryan v. Ryan, 292 Minn. 52, 55 , therefore, according to the rules of contract construction, there must be a meeting of the parties’ minds on the essential terms of the agreement, id.
Tomscak v. Tomscak 352 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Tomscak v. Tomscak 352 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Ryan v. Ryan, 292 Minn. 52
Halverson v. Village of Deerwood 322 N.W.2d 761 Minn. 1982
Halverson v. Village of Deerwood 322 N.W.2d 761 Minn. 1982
The decision of the trial court vacating the stipulation of settlement rests within the court’s discretion, and its action “will not be reversed unless it can be shown that the court acted in such an arbitrary manner as to amount to an abuse of discretion.” Ryan v. Ryan, 292 Minn. 52, 55
Mr. Steak, Inc. v. Sandquist Steaks, Inc. 245 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1976
Mr. Steak, Inc. v. Sandquist Steaks, Inc. 245 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1976
Ryan v. Ryan, 292 Minn. 52
Spannaus v. Arrowood 230 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 1975
In Re Estate of Bush 230 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 1975
In Re Estate of Bush 230 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 1975
[21] Simchuck v. Fullerton, 299 Minn. 91 , Schroeder v. Jesco, Inc., 296 Minn. 447 , Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177 , Ryan v. Ryan, 292 Minn. 52
Spannaus v. Arrowood 230 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 1975
s brief, the foundation suggested that the trial judge’s position of presiding judge in the district court litigation between the class A and class B directors “might well have colored his views.” Simchuck v. Fullerton, 299 Minn. 91 , Schroeder v. Jesco, Inc. 296 Minn. 447 , Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177 , Ryan v. Ryan, 292 Minn. 52
Butkovich v. O'LEARY 225 N.W.2d 847 Minn. 1975
Butkovich v. O'LEARY 225 N.W.2d 847 Minn. 1975
Schoenfeld v. Buker, 262 Minn. 122 , Ryan v. Ryan, 292 Minn. 52

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by