Cited by

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

113 citing documents.

Glacial Plains Cooperative v. Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co. 897 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The primary goal of contract interpretation is to determine and enforce the intent of the parties.”
Leland Bertsch, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Contract interpretation is a question of law which we re view de novo.”
Accounts Receivable Services, LLC, as Successor in Interest to Allina Health System, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
8 Contractual rights and duties are generally assignable , , including the rig ht to receive payment on debts, Wilkie v. Becker , 268 Minn. 262, 267
Stand Up Multipositional Advantage MRI, P.A. v. American Family Insurance Company, a Wisconsin corporation, Michael Schultz, Ilya Knyazev, … 889 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2017
Stand Up Multipositional Advantage MRI, P.A. v. American Family Insurance Company, a Wisconsin corporation, Michael Schultz, Ilya Knyazev, … 889 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2017
274 (Minn. 2004) (addressing assignments in the context of a management contract).
WAF-2, LLC v. Lowry Building, LLC, and third party v. John R. Rupp, third party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
WAF-2, LLC v. Lowry Building, LLC, and third party v. John R. Rupp, third party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The primary goal of contract interpretation is to determine and enforce the intent of the parties.”
Andrew Kaeding v. Karl Auleciems, Susanne Auleciems 886 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Andrew Kaeding v. Karl Auleciems, Susanne Auleciems 886 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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
Storms, Inc. v. Mathy Construction Co. 883 N.W.2d 772 Minn. 2016
Storms, Inc. v. Mathy Construction Co. 883 N.W.2d 772 Minn. 2016
Put differently, “[w]here there is a written instrument, the intent of the parties is determined from the plain language of the instrument itself.”
Marisa Hunt v. State of Minnesota, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees - Minnesota Council 5 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marisa Hunt v. State of Minnesota, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees - Minnesota Council 5 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Stand Up Multipositional Advantage MRI, P.A. v. American Family Insurance Company, a Wisconsin corporation, Michael Schultz, Ilya Knyazev, … 878 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Stand Up Multipositional Advantage MRI, P.A. v. American Family Insurance Company, a Wisconsin corporation, Michael Schultz, Ilya Knyazev, … 878 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Travertine Corp, v. Lexington-Silverwood, 274 (Minn.2004).
James L. Mandel v. Multiband Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
David Waterworth v. Elaine Ekman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
David Waterworth v. Elaine Ekman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A. “The primary goal of contract interpretation is to ascertain and enforce the intent of the parties.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
James L. Mandel v. Multiband Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[W]hen a contractual provision is clear and unambiguous, courts 6 should not rewrite, modify, or limit its effect by a strained construction.”
In re the Estate of: Bernice R. Murray aka Bernice Murray Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Estate of: Bernice R. Murray aka Bernice Murray Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael N. Palm, Sr. v. Calhoun Realty Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael N. Palm, Sr. v. Calhoun Realty Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[W]hen a contractual provision is clear and unambiguous, courts should not rewrite, modify, or limit its effect by a strained construction.”
Liza A. Robson, Trustee of The Ann S. Fischer Living Trust u/d/t February 2, 1995 v. The Economic … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Liza A. Robson, Trustee of The Ann S. Fischer Living Trust u/d/t February 2, 1995 v. The Economic … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
When interpreting a written instrument, “the intent of the parties is determined from the plain language of the instrument itself.” Travertine Corp. v. Lexington–Silverwood
Analog Technologies Corp. v. Edward Knutson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Analog Technologies Corp. v. Edward Knutson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“We have consistently stated that when a contractual provision is clear and unambiguous, courts should not rewrite, modify, or limit its effect by a strained construction.”
20/20 Group, Inc. d/b/a Opportunities in Business v. Hydeaway II, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
20/20 Group, Inc. d/b/a Opportunities in Business v. Hydeaway II, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
purchases the building [occupied by the liquor store] within 24 months.” “The primary goal of contract interpretation is to determine and enforce the intent of the parties.”
Christopher D. Reigel v. DPS Properties LLC, Stephen v. Buck Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Christopher D. Reigel v. DPS Properties LLC, Stephen v. Buck Minn. Ct. App. 2014
It is well settled that “the term ‘shall’ reflects a mandatory imposition.”
Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Second Chance Investments, LLC 812 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Second Chance Investments, LLC 812 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Id.; Canadian Universal Ins.
Baker v. Best Buy Stores, LP 812 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Baker v. Best Buy Stores, LP 812 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
If the contract is memorialized in a written instrument, the reviewing court determines the parties’ intent “from the plain language of the instrument itself.”
Savela v. City of Duluth 806 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2011
Savela v. City of Duluth 806 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2011
In other words, “[w]here there is a written instrument, the intent of the parties is determined from the plain language of the instrument itself.”
301 Clifton Place L.L.C. v. 301 Clifton Place Condominium Ass'n 783 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
301 Clifton Place L.L.C. v. 301 Clifton Place Condominium Ass'n 783 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“The primary goal of contract interpretation is to determine and enforce the intent of the parties.”
Mountain Peaks Financial Services, Inc. v. Roth-Steffen 778 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Mountain Peaks Financial Services, Inc. v. Roth-Steffen 778 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(contracts); Nat’l Union Fire Ins.
National City Bank v. Engler 777 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
National City Bank v. Engler 777 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
American National Bank of Minnesota v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority for Brainerd 773 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
American National Bank of Minnesota v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority for Brainerd 773 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
When interpreting a written instrument, “the intent of the parties is determined from the plain language of the instrument itself.”
Star Windshield Repair, Inc. v. Western National Insurance Co. 768 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2009
Star Windshield Repair, Inc. v. Western National Insurance Co. 768 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2009
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord's, Inc. 764 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 2009
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord's, Inc. 764 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 2009
“Contract interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo.” (citing Employers Mut.
Marriage of Grachek v. Grachek 750 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2008

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by