Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord's, Inc., 764 N.W.2d 359.

205 citing documents.

Brett Cournoyer v. Darren Troy Lang, et al., Whitetail Properties Real Estate, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Reliance in fraud cases is generally evaluated in the context of the aggrieved party ’s intelligence, experience, and opportunity to investigate the facts at issue.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Jerry M. Gelao, et al v. Zumbro Township Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Badger Mutual Insurance v. Alexia Coleman, Ramell Coleman, Malaika Sanford, as parent and natural guardian of M.C., a … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
But “when a contractual provision is clear and unambiguous, courts should not rewrite, modify, or limit its effect by a strained construction.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., -65 (Minn. 2009).
In re the Marriage of: Ryan Edward Nagle v. Maureen Mary Nagle Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Joseph Dixon v. Comcast Corp., d/b/a XFinity Mobile Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Contract interpretation is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Doran MGC I, LLC v. Vein Clinics of America, Inc., Phlebology Management, LLC, d/b/a USA Vein Clinics Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Heating & Air Conditioning, n.1 (Minn. App. 1992); see also Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., (“Waiver generally is a question of fact, and it is rarely to be inferred as a matter of law.” (quotation omitted)); Engstrom v. Farmers & Bankers Life Ins.
Thomas Brule Trucking, LLC v. QTE By-Products, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Because TBT’s claim involves alleged false representations regarding a future promise, TBT must show that QTE “had no intention to perform at the time the promise was made.” See Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Han Zhong v. Nicholas Dudero, et al., Stieg Strand, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Han Zhong v. Nicholas Dudero, et al., Stieg Strand, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., -99 (Minn. 1976).
John Paul Haik v. Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Waiver, on the other hand, is “the intentional relinquishment of a known right.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., (quotations omitted).
Sustainable 9, LLC d/b/a Sustainable 9 Design + Build v. Jacqueline Coleman, Riverland Bank, John Doe, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., (“Contract interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo.” (quotation omitted)); Northfield Care Ctr., 4 Coleman’s expert testified to the following repair costs: $26,667 for the basement floor, $15,107 for the concrete stoops
Jaguar Communications, LLC (A25-0090) v. Daniel Petsinger (A25-0025) Minn. Ct. App. 2025
13 Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Steve Enestvedt v. Dean Enestvedt, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
North Country Contracting, LLC, et al v. Citizens Alliance Bank, Nick Woodard Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“The primary goal of contract interpretation is to ascertain and enforce the intent of the parties.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc .
State of Minnesota v. Eric Eugene Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“It is the expression of an intention not to insist on what the law affords.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc. , (quotation omitted).
Anshuman Bhatia, et al v. Joseph Anderson, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In their reply brief, appellants respond that they preserved the argument because, in their principal brief, they stated the five elements of a misrepresentation claim as outlined in Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., and those elements do not include the element of duty.
Continental Clay Company Inc v. Foundry L.L.C. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Jeffrey D. Kuhn v. Richard G. Dunn 8 N.W.3d 633 Minn. 2024
Jeffrey D. Kuhn v. Richard G. Dunn 8 N.W.3d 633 Minn. 2024
(quoting Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s Inc., –65 (Minn. 2009)).
Chase Rovere, et al v. Clifford Ling, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Chase Rovere, et al v. Clifford Ling, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Robert R. Schroeder Construction, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation, vs. W. Gohman Construction Co. d/b/a Artistic Stone … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Robert R. Schroeder Construction, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation, vs. W. Gohman Construction Co. d/b/a Artistic Stone … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[P]arties to a contract may expressly agree that written notice of breach is a condition precedent to bringing a breach of contract claim and that the failure to give written notice bars a subsequent claim.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Adam Dowd v. Lynn Slordal, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Northern Lines Contracting, Inc. v. Faribault County, Granite Re, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s Inc.
Wells Fargo Bank, N. A v. Port Authority of the City of Saint Paul, Capital City Properties, et … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Jeffrey D. Kuhn v. Richard G. Dunn, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
10 Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord ’s, Inc., -65 (Minn. 2009); Roemhildt v. Kristall Dev., Inc. , rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2011); see also, e.g., Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., (applying a de novo standard of review to the decision to grant a motion to dismiss for failure to state a clai
Kevin Bruntlett v. Evelyn Bruntlett Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Lynn Peterson v. Clark Lake Homes, Inc., et al., Shelley Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s Inc.
Arch Insurance Company, as subrogee of Centre Rental, Inc. v. Michael Quistorff Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Mesabi Metallics Company, LLC, et al v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s , Inc.
Dr. Eric Steffen v. Scott Uttley, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Landform Professional Services, LLC v. Kevin Lefebvre, et al., The Bank of Elk River, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Joseph Eilefson v. Park Nicollet Health Services Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
FKS Enterprises, Inc., et al v. Matthew Whebbe, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Aaron J. Harkins, Minn. 2022
“Contract interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Little Earth of United Tribes Housing Corp v. Bonita LittleGhost Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Waiver generally is a question of fact, and it is ra rely to be inferred as a matter of law.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s Inc. , (quoting Farnum v. Peterson-Biddick Co., 234 N.W.
City of Shorewood v. Guy Gerald Sanschagrin, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
[that would] permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., (quotation omitted).
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.
RSS Fridley, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, et al v. Northwestern Orthopaedic Surgeons Partnership, LLP, a Minnesota … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
the falsity of the representation or made without knowing whether it was true or false”; (3) the defendant made the representation with the intent to induce the plaintiff to act in reliance on it; (4) the representation caused the plaintiff to act in reliance on it; and (5) the plaintiff “suffered pecuniary damages as a result of the reliance.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Odyssey Medica_l Technologies, LLC v. Medtronic, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord's, Inc.
Kawaljit S. Bhatia, as Trustee for the next of kin of Ena M. Bhatia, deceased v. Owners Insurance … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
If a contract is “clear and unambiguous,” a court “should not rewrite, modify, or limit its effect by a 7 strained construction.” Valspar Refinish, Inc., v. Gaylord’s, Inc., -65 (Minn. 2009).
Peter Gerard Lonergan, and on behalf of all citizens civilly committed under the MCTA v. Keith Ellison, Attorney … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., d 359, 368 (Minn. 2009).
Minnesota Bank & Trust v. 11 Water LLC, et al., David Jon Monson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s Inc.
North Loop Downtown, LLC v. Benjamin Liao, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“The primary goal of contract interpretation is to ascertain and enforce the intent of the parties.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Khalif Jama, et al v. Saleban Garbiye, Amal Money Wire, LLC d/b/a Amal Express, et al., and Jamal … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc. d 359, 364 (Minn. 2009).
Lineth Arrocha, et al v. Como Park Zoo And Conservatory, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Mork and Associates, Inc., et al. (A19-1914), Co-Appellants (A20-0480) v. Willow Run Partners, et al., Rodney Vlach, et … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[W]hen a contractual provision is clear and unambiguous, courts should not rewrite, m odify, or limit its effect by a strained construction.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s Inc. , -65 (Minn. 2009).
Trevor Johnson v. Mathiowetz Construction Company, PCiRoads, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Karen Mattinen v. Linda Kari, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.