Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Material Movers, Inc. v. Hill, 316 N.W.2d 13.

34 citing documents.

Jill Mungall, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Sela Roofing and Remodeling, Inc., d/b/a as Sela Gutter Connection, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Material Movers, (quoting Ylijarvi, 213 Minn. at 390, d at 318).
Leslie Davis v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Leslie Davis v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The parol evidence rule makes inadmissible evidence concerning discussions prior to or contemporaneous with the execution of a written instrument when that evidence contradicts or varies the terms of the written agreement.” Material Movers
WDSI, INC. v. County of Steele 672 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
WDSI, INC. v. County of Steele 672 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Alpha Real Estate Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of Minnesota 664 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2003
Alpha Real Estate Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of Minnesota 664 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2003
However, “where a written agreement is ambiguous or incomplete, evidence of oral agreements tending to establish the intent of the parties is admissible.” Gutierrez v. Red River Distrib., Inc., (quoting Material Movers, ).
Ed Herman & Sons v. Russell 535 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1995
Ed Herman & Sons v. Russell 535 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1995
“[W]here a written agreement is ambiguous or incomplete, [parol] evidence * * * tending to establish the intent of the parties is admissible.” Material Movers
Gutierrez v. Red River Distributing, Inc. 523 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1994
Gutierrez v. Red River Distributing, Inc. 523 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1994
And, where a written agreement is ambiguous or incomplete, evidence of oral agreements tending to establish the intent of the parties is admissible.” Material Movers, (citations omitted).
HIGGINS ON BEHALF OF HIGGINS v. Winter 474 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
HIGGINS ON BEHALF OF HIGGINS v. Winter 474 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Carlson v. Estes 458 N.W.2d 123 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Carlson v. Estes 458 N.W.2d 123 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Apache Plaza, Ltd. v. Midwest Savings Ass'n 456 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Apache Plaza, Ltd. v. Midwest Savings Ass'n 456 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
The supreme court addressed a similar issue on substantial performance in Material Movers
McNeill & Associates, Inc. v. ITT Life Insurance Corp. 446 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
McNeill & Associates, Inc. v. ITT Life Insurance Corp. 446 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Apple Valley Red-E-Mix, Inc. v. Mills-Winfield Engineering Sales, Inc. 436 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Apple Valley Red-E-Mix, Inc. v. Mills-Winfield Engineering Sales, Inc. 436 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
at 43 (quoting Material Movers, ).
United Artists Communications, Inc. v. Corporate Property Investors 410 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
United Artists Communications, Inc. v. Corporate Property Investors 410 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Material Movers, Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 215 (1981).
Oleisky v. Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n Minneapolis 398 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Oleisky v. Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n Minneapolis 398 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Material Movers, Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds Associates, Inc.
Marriage of Orman v. Orman 364 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Orman v. Orman 364 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Lundeen v. Lappi 361 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Lundeen v. Lappi 361 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Nelson v. Smith 349 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Nelson v. Smith 349 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
“The parol evidence rule makes inadmissible evidence concerning discussions prior to or contemporaneous with the execution of a written instrument when that evidence contradicts or varies the terms of the written agreement.” Material Movers, (emphasis added).
Hield v. Thyberg 347 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1984
Hield v. Thyberg 347 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1984
Material Movers, Phoenix Publishing Co. v. Riverside Clothing Co., 54 Minn. 205, 206 , 55 N.W.