Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Flynn v. Sawyer, 272 N.W.2d 904.

57 citing documents.

Brett Cournoyer, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Flynn v. Sawyer , -08 (Minn. 1978).
Michael Fosness, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
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
But “parol evidence is admissible to explain the parties’ conduct subsequent to the written agreement.”
David Schindele, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
But parol evidence is admissible when the written agreement is incomplete or ambiguous to explain the meaning of its terms.’” Maday, d at 287 (– 08 (Minn. 1978)).
In re the Estate of: Terry Lee McCoy, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Specific performance is an equitable remedy addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” ( ).
Travis Colsen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Flynn v. Sawyer , -08 (Minn. 1978); NC Properties, LLC v. Lind , -20 (Minn. App. 2011).
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
Flynn v. Sawyer , , 908 (Minn. 1978) ; Wick v. Murphy , 237 Minn. 447 , , 808-09 (1952) ; Leslie v. Minneapolis Teachers Ret.
Ricky Johnson, d/b/a Rick Johnson’s Deer and Beaver, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The general prohibition against parol evidence does not apply when ev idence is used “to explain the parties’ conduct subsequent to the written agreement.” Flynn v. Sawyer
In re the Estate of Anna McMullen, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
However, when a term or provision of a lease agreement is ambiguous or incomplete, paro l evidence is admiss ible to “explain the meaning of its terms.”
Melrose Gates, LLC v. Chor Moua 875 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2016
Melrose Gates, LLC v. Chor Moua 875 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2016
HRA v. Blackwell, 602 N.W,2d 243, 244 (Minn.1999) (applying an abuse of discretion standard to a grant of specific performance following a court trial); Krmpotich, d at 57 (reviewing a trial court’s weighing of equitable factors following a bench trial for abuse of discretion); -0 (Minn.1978) (applying an abuse of discretion standard of review to a trial.
Ram Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rohde 820 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
Ram Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rohde 820 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
(explaining that equitable remedies are “addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court”).
Maday v. Grathwohl 805 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Maday v. Grathwohl 805 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
But parol evidence is admissible when the written agreement is incomplete or ambiguous to explain the meaning of its terms.” -08 (Minn.1978).
Dykes v. Sukup Manufacturing Co. 781 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2010
Dykes v. Sukup Manufacturing Co. 781 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2010
Borgersen v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. 729 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Borgersen v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. 729 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
When an agreement between parties is reduced to writing, parol evidence “is ordinarily inadmissible to vary, contradict, or alter the written agreement.” -08 (Minn.1978).
Dakota County HRA v. Blackwell 602 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1999
Dakota County HRA v. Blackwell 602 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1999
Minneapolis Public Housing Authority v. Lor 591 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 1999
Minneapolis Public Housing Authority v. Lor 591 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 1999
See, , 403 n. 3 (Minn.1979) (laches an equitable defense); (unconscionability based on equity powers of court).
Giles v. Gageby 580 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Giles v. Gageby 580 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Anderson v. Minnesota Insurance Guaranty Ass'n 520 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Anderson v. Minnesota Insurance Guaranty Ass'n 520 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
-08 (Minn.1978) (parol evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of a written agreement absent ambiguity or incompleteness); Pedersen v. United Servs.
Lilyerd v. Carlson 499 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1993
Lilyerd v. Carlson 499 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1993
9 Specific performance is an equitable remedy, however, “addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court,” Boulevard Plaza Corp. v. Campbell, 254 Minn. 123, 134 , and is generally not afforded where it will work a hardship or injustice on either party.
Sylvester Bros. Development Co. v. Great Central Insurance Co. 480 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Sylvester Bros. Development Co. v. Great Central Insurance Co. 480 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
-08 (Minn.1978) (parol evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of a written agreement absent ambiguity or incompleteness); Pedersen v. United Services Auto Ass’n, (extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to construe an insurance policy absent ambiguity in the policy language).
Carlson v. Estes 458 N.W.2d 123 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Carlson v. Estes 458 N.W.2d 123 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(parol evidence is admissible to establish that, because of fraudulent misrepresentations, no enforceable contract was made), pet.
Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. Alexander 437 N.W.2d 97 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. Alexander 437 N.W.2d 97 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
O'MEARA v. Olson 414 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
O'MEARA v. Olson 414 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Since 1978, the statute has been amended six more times.
LaPanta v. Heidelberger 392 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
LaPanta v. Heidelberger 392 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Glaser v. Minnesota Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 389 N.W.2d 763 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Glaser v. Minnesota Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 389 N.W.2d 763 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Northern Timberline Equipment, Inc. v. Gustafson 386 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Northern Timberline Equipment, Inc. v. Gustafson 386 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
H.J. Kramer Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Scharmer 386 N.W.2d 742 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
H.J. Kramer Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Scharmer 386 N.W.2d 742 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hruska v. Chandler Associates, Inc. 372 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1985
Hruska v. Chandler Associates, Inc. 372 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1985
MTS CO. v. Taiga Corp. 365 N.W.2d 321 Minn. Ct. App. 1985