Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Nord v. Herreid, 305 N.W.2d 337.

239 citing documents.

Stausi Jeff Duross, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(concluding that parol evidence was admissible to determine existence of condition precedent in lease agreement).
Coleen Christensen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
When deciding a summary-judgment motion, the district court “must not weigh the evidence,” DLH, because the district court’s role is not “to decide issues of fact but solely to determine whether” genuine fact issues exist
Rum River Timber Harvesting, Inc. v. Greg Jeddeloh Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Rum River Timber Harvesting, Inc. v. Greg Jeddeloh Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Lorob Properties LLC, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
James R. Pavelka, Jr., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Nord v. Herreid , (“Testimony of subsequent conversations does not fall within the ambit of the parol evidence rule.”).
Robert Sharot, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“All doubts and factual inferences must be resolved against the moving party.”
In re the Estate of Kenneth Edwin Ohlund, a/k/a Kenneth E. Ohlund, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
GGG, Incorporation, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See, e.g., Nord v. Herreid , (permitting parol evidence to interpret the meaning of a particular term, after a finding that the term at issue was ambiguous ); n.4 (Minn. 1980 ) (permitting parol evidence due to allegations of fraud); Bussard v. 11 Coll.
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Lana Schulz, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Anthony Patrick Huber, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Nord v. Herreid , , 339 (Minn. 1981) (“[I]t is no part of the court’s function to decide issues of fact but solely to determine whether there is an issue of fact to be tried.” (quotation omitted) ).
Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc. 898 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc. 898 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
“All doubts and factual inferences must be resolved against the moving party.”
Town Center Office Plaza Association, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
against the moving party.”
Robert Martin v. A�BULAE, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Robert Martin v. A�BULAE, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
3 Appellants also argue that “a court may consider parol evidence of subsequent conversations which alter the terms of a contract to determine if the parties have orally modified a contract.” (allowing admission of parol evidence to clarify ambiguous term).
328 Barry Avenue, LLC v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC 871 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 2015
328 Barry Avenue, LLC,Appellant v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC, and third party v. Carciofini Company, third party Marvin … Minn. 2015
328 Barry Avenue, LLC v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC 871 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 2015
328 Barry Avenue, LLC,Appellant v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC, and third party v. Carciofini Company, third party Marvin … Minn. 2015
Franklin C. Olson v. Rustic Bar, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Franklin C. Olson v. Rustic Bar, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
D-1 Although it is true that, as the majority points out, all doubts and factual inferences must be resolved against the moving party, the nonmoving party cannot avoid summary judgment by relying on “[m]ere speculation, without some concrete evidence.” Bob Useldinger & Sons
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester, First Transit, Inc. 868 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester, First Transit, Inc. 868 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
Gurvin Femrite v. City of Lowry Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Gurvin Femrite v. City of Lowry Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See STAR Ctrs., Inc., d at 76-77; (“All doubts and factual inferences must be resolved against the moving party.”).
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester 846 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester 846 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The district court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and “[a]ll doubts and factual inferences must be resolved against the moving party.”
J.E.B. v. Danks 785 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 2010
J.E.B. v. Danks 785 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 2010
Co., (noting that, because “conflicting inferences” could be drawn as to whether a guard should have noticed a crime taking place from the uncontested facts of the case, summary judgment was inappropriate); (“All doubts and factual inferences must be resolved against the moving party.”).
Opheim v. County of Norman 784 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Opheim v. County of Norman 784 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
City of Minneapolis v. Ames & Fischer Co. II, LLP 724 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
City of Minneapolis v. Ames & Fischer Co. II, LLP 724 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Cederberg v. City of Inver Grove Heights 686 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Cederberg v. City of Inver Grove Heights 686 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Mollico v. Mollico 628 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Mollico v. Mollico 628 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Paidar v. Hughes 615 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 2000
Paidar v. Hughes 615 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 2000
(noting that a district court’s proper function on summary judgment is not “to decide issues of fact but solely to determine whether there is an issue of fact to be tried” (citation omitted)).
Olson v. Lyrek 582 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Olson v. Lyrek 582 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(citing Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484-85 , ).
Costilla v. State 571 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Costilla v. State 571 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(on motion for summary judgment, district court does not decide fact issues; its sole function is to determine if fact issues exist).
Burns v. State 570 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Burns v. State 570 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(factual inferences must be resolved against the party moving for summary judgment).
DLH, Inc. v. Russ 566 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1997
DLH, Inc. v. Russ 566 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1997
(citing Anderson v. Twin City Rapid Transit Co., 250 Minn. 167, 186 , ).
Bliss v. Stevens 544 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 1996