Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 205 N.W.2d 121.

80 citing documents.

North Country Contracting, LLC, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Contractual language is ambiguous “ if, judged by its language alone and without resort to parol evidence, it is reasonably susceptible of more than one meaning.”
Odyssey Medica_l Technologies, LLC, Appellant, vs. Medtronic, Inc., Respondent. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
GGG, Incorporation, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
For example, w e determine ambiguity “without resort to parol evidence.”
Gill v. Gill 919 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2018
J.C. Allen Co., Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A contract is ambiguous “if, judged by its language alone and without resort to parol evidence, it is reasonably susceptible of more than one meaning.” Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Co., 295 Minn. 348, 351
In re the Marriage of: Sonja Vogen Baertsch, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Deciding whether an ambiguity exists “cannot be made by reading words in isolation.” (citing Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 352, ).
Sherwood Forest, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A contract is ambiguous “if, judged by its language alone and without resort to parol evidence, it is reasonably susceptible of more than one meaning.” Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 351, see also Dykes v. Sukup Mfg.
Allen Battle v. Auto Sales 1, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Allen Battle v. Auto Sales 1, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Contractual language is ambiguous “if, judged by its language alone and without resort to parol evidence, it is reasonably susceptible of more than one meaning.” Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 351
Andrew Kaeding v. Karl Auleciems, Susanne Auleciems 886 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Andrew Kaeding v. Karl Auleciems, Susanne Auleciems 886 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A contract is ambiguous “if, judged 11 by its language alone and without resort to parol evidence, it is reasonably susceptible of more than one meaning.” Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 351, see also Dykes v. Sukup Mfg.
David Waterworth v. Elaine Ekman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
David Waterworth v. Elaine Ekman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A contract is ambiguous “if, judged by its language alone and without resort to parol evidence, it is reasonably susceptible of more than one meaning.” Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 351, see also Dykes v. Sukup Mfg.
SCI Minnesota Funeral Services, Inc. v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp. 795 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 2011
SCI Minnesota Funeral Services, Inc. v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp. 795 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 2011
But Washburn contends that the court of appeals correctly applied a deferential standard of review to the district court’s decision on equitable claims because we uphold the district court’s exercise of equitable powers unless they are manifestly contrary to the evidence, citing Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 353 , (applying a manifestly-contrary-to-the-evidence standard to a reformation decision when a trial court decided the facts) and Golden Valley Shopping Ctr.,
Marriage of Grachek v. Grachek 750 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Marriage of Grachek v. Grachek 750 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
See Hydra-Mac, (reiterating the principle that language in a contract “should never be interpreted in isolation, but rather in the context of the entire agreement.”); Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 352 , (stating that “[wjords, phrases, or sentences [in a contract] cannot be dissected and read in ...
Augustine v. Arizant Inc. 735 N.W.2d 740 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Augustine v. Arizant Inc. 735 N.W.2d 740 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
See Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 355 , (holding that parties’ intent to be bound by letter of intent is “matter of fact”).
In Re the Cities of Annandale & Maple Lake NPDES/SDS Permit Issuance for the Discharge of Treated Wastewater 731 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 2007
In Re the Cities of Annandale & Maple Lake NPDES/SDS Permit Issuance for the Discharge of Treated Wastewater 731 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 2007
See Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 352 , (interpreting a contract provision).
River Valley Truck Center, Inc. v. Interstate Companies 704 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 2005
Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Chisholm v. Norman 696 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 2005
Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Chisholm v. Norman 696 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 2005
Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 351 , Telex Corp. v. Data Products Corp., 271 Minn. 288, 291 , -85 (1965).
Pioneer Peat, Inc. v. Quality Grassing & Services, Inc. 653 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Pioneer Peat, Inc. v. Quality Grassing & Services, Inc. 653 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 351
In Re Ocwen Financial Services, Inc. 649 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Ocwen Financial Services, Inc. 649 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 351
Swanson v. Parkway Estates Townhouse Ass'n 567 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Swanson v. Parkway Estates Townhouse Ass'n 567 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(citing Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 351 , ).
Art Goebel, Inc. v. North Suburban Agencies, Inc. 567 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1997
Art Goebel, Inc. v. North Suburban Agencies, Inc. 567 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1997
Lamb Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Kraus-Anderson of Minneapolis, Inc., Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 351
Current Technology Concepts, Inc. v. Irie Enterprises, Inc. 530 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 1995
Current Technology Concepts, Inc. v. Irie Enterprises, Inc. 530 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 1995
Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 351 , Lamb, d at 862 .
Goodhue State Bank v. Luhman 490 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Goodhue State Bank v. Luhman 490 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 351
Concordia College Corp. v. Salvation Army 470 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Concordia College Corp. v. Salvation Army 470 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 352 , (determination that agreement is ambiguous must be reached through synthesis in which words, phrases, and sentences are understood in accordance with purpose of agreement as a whole).
Trondson v. Janikula 458 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 1990
Trondson v. Janikula 458 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 1990
Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Cory., 295 Minn. 348, 351
Hydra-Mac, Inc. v. Onan Corp. 450 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 1990
Hydra-Mac, Inc. v. Onan Corp. 450 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 1990
Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 352
Hydra-Mac, Inc. v. Onan Corp. 430 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Hydra-Mac, Inc. v. Onan Corp. 430 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 352 , Reliable Metal, Inc. v. Shakopee Valley Printing, Inc.
Nolan v. Stuebner 429 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Nolan v. Stuebner 429 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 353
In re the May 8, 1987 Assessment by the Minnesota Insurance Guaranty Ass'n 428 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In re the May 8, 1987 Assessment by the Minnesota Insurance Guaranty Ass'n 428 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Morse, 261 Minn. 259, 264 , see also Metro Office Parks v. Control Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 351 , (where language used by parties is plain and unambiguous, no need for resort to parol evidence for construction of contract).
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
“A writing is ambiguous if, judged by its language alone and without resort to parol evidence, it is reasonably susceptible of more than one meaning.” Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 351