Cited by

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

205 citing documents.

A19-1654 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., -65 (Minn. 2009); Roemhildt v. Kristall Dev., Inc., review denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).
Aegis Insurance Services, LTD., and other interested insurers as subrogees of Northern States Power Co. and Southern Minnesota … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., (requiring a person to “suppl[y] false information ” and referring to “ the person making the representation ”).
ARF, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., (articulating elements of negligent misrepresentation); Hoyt Props., Inc. v. Prod.
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[K]nowledge may be actual or constructive and the intent to waive may be inferred from conduct.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s Inc. , (quotation omitted).
A19-0006 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In the realm of contracts, th e supreme court has “consistently stated that 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).
Pohocogo, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Quality Companies, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord ’s, Inc., Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc.
Robert F. Goerdt, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Waiver is generally a question of fact, and it is rarely to be inferred as a matter of law.” Valspar Refinish Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Rogelio Onofre, plaintiff and counterclaim defendant, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
V alspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s Inc.
David Anderson, et al., Plaintiffs, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Teresa Thompson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See V alspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Lunda Construction Company, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
at 77; see also Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
CrowdSuit, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc .
Medtronic, Inc., et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The primary goal of contract interpretation is to “enforce the intent of the parties.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Thomas A. Ruether, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylor d’s, Inc.
Phone Recovery Servs., LLC v. Qwest Corp. 919 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2018
Gill v. Gill 919 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2018
Gill v. Gill 919 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2018
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord's Inc. , , 364 (Minn. 2009).
The Bluffs on Sans Pierre Townhomes and Villas Association, Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Valspar Refinishing, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Steve Dupuis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., (listing elements of claim for fraudulent inducement).
Adherent Laboratories, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A court’s primary goal in contract interpretation “is to ascertain and enfo rce the intent of the parties.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’ s, Inc.
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
*683 Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord's, Inc. , , 364 (Minn. 2009).
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
Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC 909 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2018
Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC 909 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2018
See Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord's, Inc. , , 368 (Minn. 2009) (listing elements of fraud).
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[W]aiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., (quotations omitted).
In re: Estate of Loretta M. Chisholm, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Waiver “is the intentional relinquishment of a known right.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Ricky Johnson, d/b/a Rick Johnson’s Deer and Beaver, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Generally, it is a question of fact and “is rarely to be inferred as a matter of law.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., (quotation omitted).
KLC Financial, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc. , (stating that party opposing summary judgment “m ust present more than evidence which merely creates a metaphysical doubt as to a factual issue and which is not sufficiently probative with respect to an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case to permit reasonable persons to draw different
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
Mark Wilmes, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In order to raise a genuine issue of material fact, “the nonmoving party must present more than evidence which merely creates a metaphysical doubt as to a factual issue and which is not sufficiently probative with respect to an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case 4 to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” Valspar Refinish, In c. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Bryan Scherping, d/b/a JBR Farms; et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[W]aiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., (quotations omitted).
Accounts Receivable Services, LLC, as Successor in Interest to Allina Health System, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Dusenbery v. Hawks 895 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Dusenbery v. Hawks 895 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., (outlining elements of fraudulent inducement claim, including showing of “pecuniary *647 damages”); Witzman v. Lehrman, Lehrman & Flom, -86 (Minn. 1999) (“[A]ll who actively participate in any manner in the commission of a tort, or who ...
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as certificate trustee on behalf of Bosco Credit II Trust Series 2010-1, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Law Comm’n 2002); see also Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., (citing the Uniform Commercial Code commentary as persuasive authority); Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Samora, 321 P.3d 590, 598 (Colo.
Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC 893 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC 893 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Allen Battle v. Auto Sales 1, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Allen Battle v. Auto Sales 1, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Contract interpretation is a question of law that [this court] review[s] de novo.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., (quotation omitted).
RK Midway, LLC v. Metropolitan Council Minn. Ct. App. 2017
RK Midway, LLC v. Metropolitan Council Minn. Ct. App. 2017
[that would] permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., Minn. R. Civ.
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
Robert P. Lindstrom v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Minnesota Workers� Compensation Assigned Risk Plan as administered by RTW, Inc. v. Dimas Reyes, Advanced Designs Siding and … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Robert P. Lindstrom v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The party moving for summary judgment has the burden to show that there is no genuine issue of material fact 3 and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Minnesota Workers� Compensation Assigned Risk Plan as administered by RTW, Inc. v. Dimas Reyes, Advanced Designs Siding and … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Co., (statutory interpretation); Valspar Refinish, Inc., v. Gaylord’s, Inc., (contract interpretation).
Storms, Inc. v. Mathy Construction Co. 883 N.W.2d 772 Minn. 2016