Cited by

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

205 citing documents.

The Bank of New York Mellon formerly known as the Bank of New York, as Trustee v. Anthony … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s Inc.
In the Matter of the Licensing Order Issued to Avalon Homes, Inc., and Mitchell Ammerman, individually. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Licensing Order Issued to Avalon Homes, Inc., and Mitchell Ammerman, individually. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s Inc.
Great Southern Bank v. Gustavo Aguilar Guzman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Great Southern Bank v. Gustavo Aguilar Guzman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
North Star Mutual Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Jacob Quernemoen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2014
North Star Mutual Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Jacob Quernemoen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2014
If a contract is “clear and unambiguous,” a court “should not rewrite, modify, or limit its effect by a strained construction.” Valspar Refinish, Inc., v. Gaylord’s, Inc., - 65 (Minn. 2009).
Federal National Mortgage Association v. Jeffrey D. Robinson, John Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Federal National Mortgage Association v. Jeffrey D. Robinson, John Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Antler Ridge, LLC v. Citizens State Bank-Midwest, Perry Hillman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Antler Ridge, LLC v. Citizens State Bank-Midwest, Perry Hillman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s Inc.
Patrick Exner, Relator v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 849 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Robi J. Briggs Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Robi J. Briggs Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Patrick Exner, Relator v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 849 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
State ex rel. Swanson v. 3M Co. 845 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2014
State ex rel. Swanson v. 3M Co. 845 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2014
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s Inc.
White v. City of Elk River 840 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 2013
Safety Signs, LLC v. Niles-Wiese Construction Co. 840 N.W.2d 34 Minn. 2013
White v. City of Elk River 840 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 2013
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Safety Signs, LLC v. Niles-Wiese Construction Co. 840 N.W.2d 34 Minn. 2013
(quoting Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s Inc., ).
Gallagher v. BNSF Railway Co. 829 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Gallagher v. BNSF Railway Co. 829 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Isaac v. Vy Thanh Ho 825 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 2013
Isaac v. Vy Thanh Ho 825 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 2013
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
White v. City of Elk River 822 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
White v. City of Elk River 822 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
See Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., (stating that "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 nonmov-ing party’s case to permit reasonable
Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc. 820 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2012
Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc. 820 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2012
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Ram Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rohde 820 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
Ram Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rohde 820 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
The district court therefore should interpret provisions in a lease governing a tenant’s liability for a particular loss according to the fundamental principle that the “goal of contract interpretation is to ascertain and enforce the intent of the parties.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. 819 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2012
Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. 819 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2012
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Williams v. Smith 820 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 2012
Williams v. Smith 820 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 2012
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., , 370 n. 7 (Minn.2009).
Graves v. Wayman 816 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Graves v. Wayman 816 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Moreover, “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., see Hollerman v. F.H.
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
The primary goal in contract interpretation “is to ascertain and enforce the intent of the parties.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Savela v. City of Duluth 806 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2011
Savela v. City of Duluth 806 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2011
ecifically, Savela’s proposed interpretation requires us to change the phrase “active employees” to “active employees at the time of retirement” or “then-active employees.” However, “[w]e 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.” Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., -65 (Minn.2009) (citing Telex Corp. v. *798 Data Prods.
Frandsen v. Ford Motor Co. 801 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2011
Frandsen v. Ford Motor Co. 801 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2011
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s Inc.
Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mutual Insurnce Co. 806 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mutual Insurnce Co. 806 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc.
Bearder v. State 788 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Bearder v. State 788 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Driscoll v. STANDARD HARDWARE, INC. 785 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Driscoll v. STANDARD HARDWARE, INC. 785 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., (stating that “[w]hen a party conducts an independent factual investigation before it enters into a commercial transaction, that party cannot later claim that it reasonably relied on the alleged misrepresentation”).
Dykes v. Sukup Manufacturing Co. 781 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2010