Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Travertine Corp. v. Lexington-Silverwood, 683 N.W.2d 267.

113 citing documents.

Jeffrey H Landon, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
When “there is a written instrument, the intent of the parties is determined from the plain language of the instrument itself.” .
Hegenes Properties, LLC v. Michelle Rodriguez, John Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The primary goal of contract interpretation is to determine and enforce the intent of the parties.”
Jacquelyn Karre, et al., Plaintiffs, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Edgar C. Ray v. Timothy Roen Kraft, aka T. Roen Kraft aka Roen Kraft, Mark Hoiseth, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Edgar C. Ray v. Timothy Roen Kraft, aka T. Roen Kraft aka Roen Kraft, Mark Hoiseth, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Ronald E. Roehrs Trust Dated August 9, 1999. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
d 267, 271 (Minn. 2004) (stating that “ when a contractual provision is clear and unambiguous, courts should not rewrite, modify, or limit its effect by a strained construction”).
Aries Williams v. John Kienzle Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Aries Williams v. John Kienzle Minn. Ct. App. 2025
When the language of a contract is clear and unambiguous, we construe it according to its plain meaning, and do not “rewrite, modify, or limit its effect by a strained construction.” see also Dykes, d at 582.
Mark Lukens, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Roanaq Osman, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
The threshold argument requires us to interpret a contractual agreement, a task we undertake de novo, while we review the district court’s related factual findings for clear error
Steve Enestvedt, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
When the language of a contract is clear and unambiguous, we construe it according to its plain meaning, and do not “rewrite, modify, or limit its effect by a strained construction.” see also Dykes , d at 582.
North Country Contracting, LLC, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Distinctive Iron, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Karol M. Provost, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Travertine Corp. v. Lexington–Silverwood
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Tokvan Ly. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“The primary goal of contract interpretation is to determine and enforce the intent of the parties.” Travertine Corp. v. Lexington- 10 Silverwood
2700 Hennepin LLC v. VPC Minneapolis Uptown Pizza, LLC, VPC Pizza Operating Corp., ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
2700 Hennepin LLC v. VPC Minneapolis Uptown Pizza, LLC, VPC Pizza Operating Corp., ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Sandra Weise v. Alan M. Powell Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Sandra Weise v. Alan M. Powell Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Robert R. Schroeder Construction, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation v. W. ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Robert R. Schroeder Construction, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation v. W. ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“The primary goal of contract interpretation is to determine and enforce the intent of the parties.”
Clarence Hightower, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(noting that “when a contractual provision is clear and unambiguous, courts should not rewrite, modify, or limit its effect by a strained construction”).
Sawmill Golf Club, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Travertine Corp. v. 5 Lexington-Silverwood
Jeffrey D. Kuhn, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
” Travertine Corp. v. Lexington -Silverwood
Shawnae Feltus, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Minn. 2022
“The 16 primary goal of contract interpretation is to determine and enforce the intent of the parties.” see Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
State of Minnesota, Minnesota Judicial Branch, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The primary goal of contract interpretation is to determine and en force the intent of the parties.”
Odyssey Medica_l Technologies, LLC, Appellant, vs. Medtronic, Inc., Respondent. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
BDS Laundry Management Company, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Minn. 2021
“Where there is a written instrument, the intent of the parties is determined from the plain language of the instrument itself.” Travertine Corp. v. Lexington –Silverwood
Robert L. Meller, Jr., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
16 (2018); Travertine Corp. v. Lexington – Silverwood
A19-1347 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
If a contract ual provision is unambiguous, the contract must be given its plain and ordinary meaning, Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., -47 (Minn. 2003), and a court should not “rewrite, modify, or limit its effect by strained construction,” Travertine Corp. v. Lexington - 7 Silverwood, , nor consider evidence of the parties’ conduct after signing an agreement.
Andrea Tallman, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Skyler Woodard, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Farmers State Bank of Trimont, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The primary goal of contract interpretati on is to determine and enforce the intent of the parties.”
Rogelio Onofre, plaintiff and counterclaim defendant, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Catherine Elizabeth Welch, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
6 Travertine Corp. v. Lexington-Silverwood , review denied (Minn. Jan.
Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
v. Lexington -Silverwood, (citations omitted).
Ellen Kalahar-Grissom, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
8 of the parties.” Travertine Corp. v. Lexington -Silverwood
Crow Wing Cooperative Power and Light Company, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Tad Ware & Company, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
5 Contract interpretation presents “a question of law which we review de novo.” Travertine Corp. v. Lexington -Silverwood
Adherent Laboratories, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
With a written agreement, this court determines the parties’ intent “from the plain language of the instrument itself.”
St. Jude Med., Inc. v. Carter 913 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 2018
St. Jude Med., Inc. v. Carter 913 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 2018
Because the intent of the parties is typically determined from the plain language of a written contract, Travertine Corp. v. Lexington-Silverwood , , 271 (Minn. 2004), we generally "enforce the agreement of the parties as expressed in the language of the contract," Dykes v. Sukup Mfg.
J.C. Allen Co., Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The primary goal of contract interpretation is to ascertain and enforce the intent of the parties.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’ s, Inc. , see also 7 Travertine Corp. v. Lexington –Silverwood
Glacial Plains Coop. v. Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co., LLLP 912 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 2018
Glacial Plains Coop. v. Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co., LLLP 912 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 2018
While we do not impose a "magic words" requirement on contracts of perpetual duration, see Travertine Corp. v. Lexington-Silverwood , , 272 (Minn. 2004), the use of the word "indefinitely" creates uncertainty as to whether the contract is meant to be of indefinite duration or perpetual duration.
Sherwood Forest, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The primary goal of contract interpretation is to ascertain and enforce the intent of the parties.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., see also Travertine Corp. v. Lexington –Silverwood
Jeremiah Akinnola, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Travertine Corp. v. Lexington -Silverwood
Glacial Plains Cooperative v. Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co. 897 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2017

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by