Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Minneapolis Cablesystems v. City of Minneapolis, 299 N.W.2d 121.

26 citing documents.

Thomas Brule Trucking, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(concluding that, because a city council 5 TBT also argues that the district court impermissibly weighed evidence and made credibility determinations because it ignored TBT’s evidence of the parties’ May 31 meeting and Leverington’s May 31 text messages in its summary- judgment order.
Goldmount Veterinary Center, P.A., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A contract requires a meeting of the minds concerning its essential elements.”
Ronald J. Bardine, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
7 Petersen urges us to apply Camelot LLC v. AMC ShowPlace Theaters, Inc., 665 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2012), Minneapolis Cablesystems v. City of Minneapolis , and Tri State Grease & Tallow Co. v. BJB, LLC , WL 2518954, at *1 (Minn. App. June 27, 2011), and to conclude that the agreement was not renewed or extended because there was no renegotiation of the contract.
State of Minnesota v. Melody June Fay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Melody June Fay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A contract requires a 7 meeting of the minds concerning its essential elements.”
Medical Staff of Avera Marshall Regional Medical Center on its Own behalf and in its Representative Capacity for … 857 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2014
Medical Staff of Avera Marshall Regional Medical Center on its Own behalf and in its Representative Capacity for … 857 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2014
SCI Minn. Funeral Servs.
SCI Minnesota Funeral Services, Inc. v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp. 795 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 2011
SCI Minnesota Funeral Services, Inc. v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp. 795 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 2011
Mutual assent entails a “meeting of the minds concerning [a contract’s] essential elements.” see also Black’s Law Dictionary 132 (9th ed.2009) (defining mutual assent as an “[a]greement by both parties to a contract ...
SCI Minnesota Funeral Services, Inc. v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp. 779 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
SCI Minnesota Funeral Services, Inc. v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp. 779 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“A contract requires a meeting of the minds concerning its essential elements.”
Murray v. Puls 690 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Murray v. Puls 690 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Smith v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 656 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Smith v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 656 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(stating no contract is created when there is no meeting of minds concerning essential elements of contract).
Mattice v. Minnesota Property Insurance Placement 655 N.W.2d 336 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Veerkamp v. Farmers Cooperative Creamery of Foreston, Minnesota 573 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Veerkamp v. Farmers Cooperative Creamery of Foreston, Minnesota 573 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Northern Nat’l Bank of Bemidji v. Northern Minn. Nat’l Bank of Duluth, 244 Minn. 202, 208 , (stranger to contract has no rights under contract); Anderson v. First Northtoum Nat’l Bank, (same); (valid contract requires meeting of parties’ minds regarding essential contract elements).
Western Insulation Services, Inc. v. Central National Insurance Co. of Omaha 460 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Western Insulation Services, Inc. v. Central National Insurance Co. of Omaha 460 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
“A contract requires a meeting of the minds concerning its essential elements.”
State Bank of Hamburg v. Stoeckmann 417 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State Bank of Hamburg v. Stoeckmann 417 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Smoliak v. Myhr 361 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Smoliak v. Myhr 361 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
our supreme court noted that “[a] contract requires a meeting of the minds concerning its essential elements.” Id.
Cable Communications Board v. Nor-West Cable Communications Partnership 356 N.W.2d 658 Minn. 1984
Cable Communications Board v. Nor-West Cable Communications Partnership 356 N.W.2d 658 Minn. 1984
this court held that no valid contract for a cable franchise was entered into by the city where the city had made clear in its franchise award that the award was contingent upon passage of a franchise ordinance, and that ordinance was not passed.