Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Turner v. Alpha Phi Sorority House, 276 N.W.2d 63.

226 citing documents.

Booth v. Gades 788 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2010
Booth v. Gades 788 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2010
Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc. 786 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 2010
Dunn v. National Beverage Corp. 729 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Dunn v. National Beverage Corp. 729 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
“The construction and effect of a contract are questions of law for the court.”
Kvidera v. Rotation Engineering & Manufacturing Co. 705 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Kvidera v. Rotation Engineering & Manufacturing Co. 705 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
“[T]he language found in a contract is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning.”
Bolander v. Bolander 703 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Bolander v. Bolander 703 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
When interpreting a contract, “the language found in a contract is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning.”
Border State Bank of Greenbush v. Bagley Livestock Exchange, Inc. 690 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Border State Bank of Greenbush v. Bagley Livestock Exchange, Inc. 690 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Vaubel Farms, Inc. v. Shelby Farmers Mutual 679 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Vaubel Farms, Inc. v. Shelby Farmers Mutual 679 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Maus v. Galic 669 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Maus v. Galic 669 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co. 666 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2003
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co. 666 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2003
Motorsports Racing Plus, Inc. v. Arctic Cat Sales, Inc. 666 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2003
Motorsports Racing Plus, Inc. v. Arctic Cat Sales, Inc. 666 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2003
Jorgensen v. Knutson 662 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2003
Jorgensen v. Knutson 662 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2003
Hanson v. State Farm Insurance Co. 661 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Hanson v. State Farm Insurance Co. 661 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
“The construction and effect of a contract are questions of law for the court.”
Carolina Holdings Midwest, LLC v. Copouls 658 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Carolina Holdings Midwest, LLC v. Copouls 658 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
"It is a well-settled principle that issues not presented at trial cannot be raised on appeal.” , 68 n. 2 (Minn.1979) (citations omitted); (this court may consider only issues that the record shows were presented to and considered by the district court; a party may not obtain review by raising the same general issue under a different theory).
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
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. 651 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. 651 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc. 649 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 2002
Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc. 649 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 2002
Concepts, Inc. v. Irie Enter., Inc.
Porch v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. 642 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Porch v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. 642 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Language in an unambiguous contract is given its “plain and ordinary meaning.” (citations omitted).
Lake Superior Paper Industries v. State 624 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 2001
Lake Superior Paper Industries v. State 624 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 2001
In Re Trusts a & B Created Under the Last Will & Testament of Divine 672 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re Trusts a & B Created Under the Last Will & Testament of Divine 672 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(stating that the meaning of a written contract presents a question of law unless there is ambiguity and construction depends on extrinsic evidence, in which case it becomes a question of fact).
S O Designs USA, Inc. v. Rollerblade, Inc. 620 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
S O Designs USA, Inc. v. Rollerblade, Inc. 620 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Language in a contract should be given its “plain and ordinary meaning.” (citations omitted).
Lund v. Southam 617 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Lund v. Southam 617 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
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
Ruddy v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 596 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Ruddy v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 596 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
“The fundamental approach to construing contracts, is to allow the intent of the parties to prevail.”
Kauffman Stewart, Inc. v. Weinbrenner Shoe Co. 589 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Kauffman Stewart, Inc. v. Weinbrenner Shoe Co. 589 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
A.A. Metcalf Moving & Storage Co. v. North St. Paul-Maplewood-Oakdale Schools 587 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
A.A. Metcalf Moving & Storage Co. v. North St. Paul-Maplewood-Oakdale Schools 587 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Nevertheless, the “construction and effect of a contract are questions of law for the court.”
Ottman v. Fadden 575 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1998