Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite LaValle v. Kulkay, 277 N.W.2d 400.

24 citing documents.

Minn. 2023
Whitefish Enterprises, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
the landowner developed property that was subject to a restrictive covenant that limited development of the lots to single-family houses.
In re the Marriage of: Dia Eldin Jubara, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
P. 52.01; (reviewing for clear error a district court’s finding that a plan existed to develop certain property); Peterson v. Holiday Recreational Indus., Inc. , (reviewing a di strict court’s finding regarding the existence of a constructive trust for clear error), rev
Nancy S. Schneider, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Dexon Computer, Inc. v. Modern Enterprise Solutions, Inc., Timothy Durant Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Dexon Computer, Inc. v. Modern Enterprise Solutions, Inc., Timothy Durant Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Advance Contract Equipment and Design LC, d/b/a, Rapids Foodservice Contract and Design v. Kevin LaMere, Horizon Equipment LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Advance Contract Equipment and Design LC, d/b/a, Rapids Foodservice Contract and Design v. Kevin LaMere, Horizon Equipment LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michael A. Friedman, Richard J. Nigon and Geoff Hirman, as Trustees of the North Shore Pines Trust v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michael A. Friedman, Richard J. Nigon and Geoff Hirman, as Trustees of the North Shore Pines Trust v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[C]ovenants restricting the use of property will be given the full force and effect intended by the party who created them, and where the language used is clear and unambiguous it will be given its obvious meaning.”
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Schwan 687 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Schwan 687 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Haley v. Forcelle 669 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Haley v. Forcelle 669 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Marriage of Geske v. Marcolina 642 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Geske v. Marcolina 642 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
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).
Upper Midwest Sales Co. v. Ecolab, Inc. 577 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Upper Midwest Sales Co. v. Ecolab, Inc. 577 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Dege v. City of Maplewood 416 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Dege v. City of Maplewood 416 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-03 (1979) (purchasers had knowledge of restrictive covenant contained in deed); Strauss v. Ginzberg, 218 Minn. 57 , (purchaser’s knowledge of restrictive covenant presumed).
Stony Ridge & Carlos View Terrace Ass'n v. Alexander 353 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Stony Ridge & Carlos View Terrace Ass'n v. Alexander 353 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 1984