Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re the Discipline of Ray, 275 N.W.2d 32.

65 citing documents.

EDF-RE US Development, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Co., (quotation omitted).
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co. 825 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2013
Co., (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Savela v. City of Duluth 806 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2011
Co., (“[We] must fastidiously guard against the invitation to create ambiguities where none exist.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Latterell v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co. 801 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 2011
Co., (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Jablonske 722 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Soo Line Railroad v. Brown's Crew Car of Wyoming 694 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Andrew L. Youngquist, Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. 625 N.W.2d 178 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Newberg v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. 619 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co. & Affiliates v. Miller 589 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 1999
Co., (cautioning against the invitation to create ambiguities where none exist).
Gopher Oil Co. v. American Hardware Mutual Insurance Co. 588 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Lhotka v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 572 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Landico, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 559 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Jenoff, Inc. v. New Hampshire Insurance Co. 558 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1997
Co., (citations omitted).
American Commerce Insurance Brokers, Inc. v. Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Co. 551 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1996
O'Shaughnessy v. Smuckler Corp. 543 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Co., ); or (3) there is an irreconcilable conflict between terms or provisions within the policy.
Lott v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 541 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 1995
Reinsurance Ass'n of Minnesota v. Hanks 539 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1995
American Commerce Insurance Brokers, Inc. v. Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Co. 535 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Brault v. Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Co. 538 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Gray v. Farmland Industries, Inc. 529 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Carlson v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. 527 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Independent School District No. 197 v. Accident & Casualty Insurance of Winterthur 525 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Hix v. Minnesota Workers' Compensation Assigned Risk Plan 520 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Co., (any reasonable doubt as to the meaning of an insurance policy must be resolved in favor of the insured).
Reinsurance Ass'n of Minnesota v. Johannessen 516 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Hammer v. Investors Life Insurance Co. of North America 511 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 1994
Reitzner v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 510 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
LaFave v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 510 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Co., (court may not create ambiguity where none exists in order to afford coverage, and must give effect to plain and ordinary meaning of policy language).
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Kahn 501 N.W.2d 703 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. v. Metcalf 501 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
TJB Companies v. Maryland Casualty Co. 499 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Independent School District No. 697 v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 495 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Coppa 494 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. National Computer Systems, Inc. 490 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Manderfeld 482 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Sylvester Bros. Development Co. v. Great Central Insurance Co. 480 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Wood Goods Galore, Inc. v. Reinsurance Ass'n of Minnesota 478 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Hammer v. Investors Life Insurance Co. of North America 473 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Retail Systems, Inc. v. CNA Insurance Companies 469 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Glarner v. Time Insurance Co. 465 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Levin v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 465 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Hamlin v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 461 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 457 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1990
Co., (citations omitted).
Gammon v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. 454 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Mikulay v. Home Indemnity Co. 449 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marschall Ex Rel. Marschall v. Reinsurance Ass'n 447 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Evenson 439 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Suburban National Bank v. Transamerica Insurance Co. 438 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In interpreting a provision of a contract, the court must give the terms “their plain, ordinary and popular meaning.” Columbia Heights Motors, (quoting Ostendorf v. Arrow Insurance Co., 288 Minn. 491, 495 , ).
Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Wasmuth 432 N.W.2d 495 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
“If the language of the policy is reasonably subject to more than one interpretation, there is ambiguity.” Columbia Heights Motors
Seaway Port Authority of Duluth v. Midland Insurance Co. 430 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Warren v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 418 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1988