Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Carl Bolander & Sons Inc. v. United Stockyards Corp., 215 N.W.2d 473.

52 citing documents.

Dametria White, et al., as co-trustees for the next-of-kin of Helayne Bass, deceased, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Carl Bolander & 14 see also Mrozik Constr., (stating that “a condition precedent will not be found absent unequivocal language”).
VH-Minneapolis South Inc v. TGI Friday's Inc., Akaashaman LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2025
VH-Minneapolis South Inc v. TGI Friday's Inc., Akaashaman LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Although “a condition precedent will not be found absent unequivocal language,” Mrozik Const., Inc. v. Lovering Assocs., Inc., d 49, 52 (Minn. App. 1990), a contract need not use “code words” to form a condition 8 precedent, Carl Bolander & Sons
Mark Lukens, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Studios, Inc., (quotation omitted); see also Carl Bolander & Sons, (explaining that a condition precedent is a fact that must occur before the promisor is obligated to perform).
The Gables at the Reserve Homeowners Association, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“[T]here are no particular code words needed to form an express condition.” Carl Bolander & Sons, d 473, 476 (Minn. 1974).
In re the Marriage of: Brad Allen Friesz, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Carl Bolande r & Sons, Inc. v. United Stockyards Corp. , 76 (Minn. 1974).
A19-1654 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Co., (defining a condition precedent as “any fact or event, subsequent to the making of a contract, which must exist or occur before a duty of immediate performance arises under the contract”); Carl Bolander & Sons, (“any fact except mere lapse of time which must exist or occur before a duty of immediate performance by the promisor can arise”); Nat’l Union Fire Ins.
In re the Matter of Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee for Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Carl Bolander & Sons Inc. v. United Stockyards Corp. , (“[ T]here are no particular code words needed to form an express condition.”).
Timothy Langdon, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A condition precedent is “any fact except mere lapse of time wh ich must exist or occur before a duty of immediate performance by the promisor can arise.” Carl Bolander & Sons Inc. v. United Stockyards Corp. , (quotation omitted); see also Nat’l City Bank of Minneapolis v. St.
Minn. Sands, LLC v. Cnty. of Winona 917 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Minn. Sands, LLC v. Cnty. of Winona 917 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. United Stockyards Corp. , 298 Minn. 428 , 433, , 476 (1974) (condition precedent is an act that must be performed or an event that must occur before a contractual right accrues or contractual duty arises).
Capistrant v. Lifetouch Nat'l Sch. Studios, Inc. 916 N.W.2d 23 Minn. 2018
Capistrant v. Lifetouch Nat'l Sch. Studios, Inc. 916 N.W.2d 23 Minn. 2018
Lake Co. v. Molan , 269 Minn. 490 , , 740 (1964) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. v. United Stockyards Corp. , 298 Minn. 428 , , 476 (1974) (explaining that a condition precedent is a fact that must occur before the promisor is obligated to perform).
Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. Tempworks Mgmt. Servs., Inc. 913 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 2018
Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. Tempworks Mgmt. Servs., Inc. 913 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 2018
See Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. v. United Stockyards Corp. , 298 Minn. 428 , , 476 (1974) ("Where the words of a written contract are plain and unambiguous, its meaning should be determined in accordance with its plainly expressed intent.").
Timothy E. Lewis v. Paul J. Borchert Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Timothy E. Lewis v. Paul J. Borchert Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A condition precedent is “any fact except mere lapse of time which must exist or occur before a duty of immediate performance by the promisor can arise.” Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. v. United Stockyards Corp., 298 Minn. 428, 433, (quotation omitted); see also Nat’l City Bank v. St.
City of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Police Relief Ass'n 800 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
City of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Police Relief Ass'n 800 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
See Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. v. United Stockyards Corp., 298 Minn. 428, 433 , (declining to disregard the plain language of the contract in the guise of effectuating the parties’ unexpressed intent).
Sayer v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 790 N.W.2d 151 Minn. 2010
Sayer v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 790 N.W.2d 151 Minn. 2010
See Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. v. United Stockyards Corp., 298 Minn. 428, 433 , (“Where the words of a written contract are plain and unambiguous, its meaning should be determined in accordance with its plainly expressed intent.”).
River Valley Truck Center, Inc. v. Interstate Companies 704 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 2005
Minnwest Bank Central v. Flagship Properties LLC 689 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Minnwest Bank Central v. Flagship Properties LLC 689 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. v. United Stockyards Corp., 298 Minn. 428, 433
Mauer v. Kircher 587 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Mauer v. Kircher 587 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
§ 645.08(1) (1996) (stating words and phrases must be construed according to common and approved usage); Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. v. United Stockyards Corp., 298 Minn. 428 , (noting, where language may be interpreted according to its plain meaning, there is no room for construction).
Brookfield Trade Center, Inc. v. County of Ramsey 584 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 1998
Brookfield Trade Center, Inc. v. County of Ramsey 584 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 1998
See Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. v. United Stockyards Corp., 298 Minn. 428, 433 , (stating that this court will not disregard the plain language of the contract in the guise of effectuating the parties’ unexpressed intent).
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. General Mills, Inc. 470 N.W.2d 118 Minn. 1991
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. General Mills, Inc. 470 N.W.2d 118 Minn. 1991
254, 257 (1932); see also Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. v. United Stockyards Corp., 298 Minn. 428, 433
In Re Estate of Aspenson 470 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In Re Estate of Aspenson 470 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. v. United Stockyards Corp., 298 Minn. 428, 433
City of Virginia v. Northland Office Properties Ltd. Partnership 465 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
City of Virginia v. Northland Office Properties Ltd. Partnership 465 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Starr v. Starr, 312 Minn. 561, 562-63 , Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. v. United Stockyards Corp., 298 Minn. 428, 433 , (where language of contract is plain and unambiguous, there is no need for construction and meaning should be determined in accordance with plainly expressed intent).
Imlay v. City of Lake Crystal 453 N.W.2d 326 Minn. 1990
Imlay v. City of Lake Crystal 453 N.W.2d 326 Minn. 1990
Carl Bolander & Sons Inc. v. United Stockyards Corp., 298 Minn. 428, 433
National City Bank of Minneapolis v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 447 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 1989
National City Bank of Minneapolis v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 447 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 1989
Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. v. United Stockyards Corp., 298 Minn. 428, 433 , 3A A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 628, at 16 (1960); 5 S. Williston, Williston on Contracts § 666A, at 141 (3d.
Imlay v. City of Lake Crystal 444 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Imlay v. City of Lake Crystal 444 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Carl Bolander & Sons Co., Inc. v. United Stockyards Corp., 298 Minn. 428, 433
Borg Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Shakopee Sports Center, Inc. 418 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Borg Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Shakopee Sports Center, Inc. 418 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. v. United Stockyards Corp., 298 Minn. 428, 433
Peoples State Bank of Plainview v. Muir 386 N.W.2d 321 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Peoples State Bank of Plainview v. Muir 386 N.W.2d 321 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. v. United Stockyards Corp., 298 Minn. 428, 433
Lanesboro State Bank v. Fishbaugher 383 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Lanesboro State Bank v. Fishbaugher 383 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“Where the words of a written contract are plain and unambiguous, its meaning should be determined in accordance with its plainly expressed intent.” Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. v. United Stockyards Corp., 298 Minn. 428, 433
Braaten v. Jarvi 347 N.W.2d 279 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Braaten v. Jarvi 347 N.W.2d 279 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Carl Bolander & Sons Co., Inc. v. United Stockyards Corp., 298 Minn. 428, 433
Ortendahl v. Bergmann 343 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Ortendahl v. Bergmann 343 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The meaning of a contract is to be ascertained from the writing alone, if possible, the duty of the court being to declare the meaning of what is written in the instrument, not what was intended to be written.” Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. v. United Stockyards Corp., 298 Minn. 428, 433

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by