Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Savela v. City of Duluth, 806 N.W.2d 793.

45 citing documents.

, A25-1164 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“[W]e assign unambiguous contract language its plain meaning.” – 97 (Minn. 2011).
APX Construction Group, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
James P Gerchy, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Karol M. Provost, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In doing so, “we assign unambiguous contract language its plain meaning.” -97 (Minn. 2011) (considering dictionary definitions to discern the meaning of contract terms).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Tokvan Ly. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 793, 796-97 (Minn. 2011).
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
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
(rejecting a party’s interpretation that would have required the supreme court to add words to a contract).
Jeffrey D. Kuhn, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(refusing to “add words” to an unambiguous contractual provision).
State of Minnesota, Minnesota Judicial Branch, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Savela v. City of Duluth , -97 (Minn. 2011).
Independent School District No. 477, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We cannot “rewrite, modify, or limit the effect” of an unambiguo us contract provision by giving it a “strained construction.” Savela v. City of Duluth , (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).
Arch Apartment Management L.L.C., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
And when a contract provision is clear and u nambiguous, “courts should not rewrite, modify, or limit its effect by a strained construction.”
Martin T. Breaker, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Doran Development, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Sakallah’s is misguided because, here, there is no suggestion that the district court added language to the purchase agreement in light of the access-easement agreement.
In re Petition for Distribution of Attorney's Fees between Stowman Law Firm, P.A., and Lori Peterson Law Firm, … 870 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2015
In re Petition for Distribution of Attorney's Fees between Stowman Law Firm, P.A., and Lori Peterson Law Firm, … 870 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 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
Liza A. Robson, Trustee of The Ann S. Fischer Living Trust u/d/t February 2, 1995 v. The Economic … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kenneth A. Roseland v. Joseph A. Wentzell, Attorney at Law, Richard L. Kusick, and Roseland Acres, LLC, third … 864 N.W.2d 356 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kenneth A. Roseland v. Joseph A. Wentzell, Attorney at Law, Richard L. Kusick, and Roseland Acres, LLC, third … 864 N.W.2d 356 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[Appellate courts] assign unambiguous contract language its plain meaning.” –97 (Minn. 2011).
Michael A. Friedman, Richard J. Nigon and Geoff Hirman, as Trustees of the North Shore Pines Trust v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michael A. Friedman, Richard J. Nigon and Geoff Hirman, as Trustees of the North Shore Pines Trust v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The determination of whether a contract is ambiguous is also a question of law, but the interpretation of an ambiguous contract is a question of fact for the jury.” (citations omitted).
Mavco, Inc. d/b/a Maverick Construction Company v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mavco, Inc. d/b/a Maverick Construction Company v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
City of Paynesville v. Greg Rutten Minn. Ct. App. 2014
City of Paynesville v. Greg Rutten Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In Re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward 853 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2014
In Re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward 853 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2014
797 n. 1 (Minn.2011) (rejecting alternative reading of statute as unreasonable and concluding statute was not ambiguous).
Sterling State Bank v. Maas Commercial Properties, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Sterling State Bank v. Maas Commercial Properties, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We “assign unambiguous contract language its plain meaning,” d 793, 796–97 (Minn. 2011), which we may ascertain by consulting dictionaries, see, (consulting dictionary to ascertain ordinary meaning of phrase in trust agreement).
City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa 843 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 2014
City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa 843 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 2014
Lifespan of Minnesota, Inc. v. Minneapolis Public Schools Independent School District 1 841 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Lifespan of Minnesota, Inc. v. Minneapolis Public Schools Independent School District 1 841 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See, -800 (Minn.2011) (determining meaning of phrase in multiple collective-bargaining contracts between city and its employees); -97 (Minn.App.1993) (reviewing summary judgment decision of district court in breach-of-contract dispute between city and landowner), revie
Dukowitz v. Hannon Security Services 841 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 2014
Dukowitz v. Hannon Security Services 841 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 2014
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co. 825 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2013
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co. 825 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2013
On review, “our task is to determine whether genuine issues of material fact exist, and whether the district court correctly applied the law.”
Mattson Ridge, LLC v. Clear Rock Title, LLP 824 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 2012
Mattson Ridge, LLC v. Clear Rock Title, LLP 824 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 2012
Weavewood, Inc. v. S & P Home Investments, LLC 821 N.W.2d 576 Minn. 2012
Weavewood, Inc. v. S & P Home Investments, LLC 821 N.W.2d 576 Minn. 2012
We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment to S & (explaining that the application of statutes of limitations is reviewed de novo).
County of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights 818 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 2012
County of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights 818 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 2012
On review, “our task is to determine whether genuine issues of material fact exist, and whether the district court correctly applied the law.”