Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., 463 N.W.2d 522.

88 citing documents.

Jerry M. Gelao, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
And courts must “attempt to avoid an interpretation of the contract that would render a provision meaningless.” Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc.
Badger Mutual Insurance, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc. , (“Because of the presumption that the parties intended the language used to have effect, we will attempt to avoid an interpretation of the contract that would render a provision meaningless.”).
William Warner, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Contract- interpretation principles also dictate that appellate courts “attempt to avoid an interpretation of [a] contract that would render a provision meaningless.” Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc.
Aries Williams v. John Kienzle Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Aries Williams v. John Kienzle Minn. Ct. App. 2025
4 and “attempt to avoid an interpretation of the contract that would render a provision meaningless.” Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., -26 (Minn. 1990).
Steve Enestvedt, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A contract is interpreted “as a whole,” and reviewing courts “attempt to harmonize all [of its] clauses” and “attempt to 9 avoid an interpretation of the contract that would render a provision meaningless.” Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., -26 (Minn. 1990).
North Country Contracting, LLC, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In harmonizing various contractual provisions, we presume that parties to a contract “ intended the language used to have effect,” and “we will attempt to avoid an interpretation of the contract that would render a provision meaningless.” Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc.
Monica Mohn, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
6 provision meaningless.” Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., -26 (Minn. 1990).
ROA Rochester v. City of Byron Minn. Ct. App. 2024
ROA Rochester v. City of Byron Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The language of the recording act makes Minnesota a race-notice jurisdiction, which means that a purchaser in good faith, or “a bona fide purchaser[,] who records first obtains rights to the property which are superior to a prior purchaser who failed to record.” Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc.
Chase Rovere v. Clifford Ling Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Chase Rovere v. Clifford Ling Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., -26 (Minn. 1990).
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
Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc.
Board of Directors, Colony by the Greens Townhome Association, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., - 26 (Minn. 1990) .
EDF-RE US Development, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., (stating that appellate courts “construe a contract as a whole and attempt to harmonize all clauses of the contract”).
Dr. Eric Steffen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We construe a contract “as a whole,” “attempt to harmonize all [of its] clauses,” and seek to avoid interpretations that “render a provision meaningless.” Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., -26 (Minn. 1990).
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc.
Independent School District No. 477, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The school district is correct that, when interpreting a contract, we “attempt to avoid an interpretation of the contract that would render a provision meaningless.” See Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc.
Robert L. Meller, Jr., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., -26 (Minn. 1990).
Bert Lawrence Pexsa, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In interpreting the contract, we construe it “as a whole,” “attempt to harmonize all [of its] clauses,” and seek to avoid interpretations that “render a provision meaningless.” Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., -26 (Minn. 1990).
Farmers State Bank of Trimont, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When the parties’ intent is “totally ascertainable” from a contract, our task is to “construe [the] contract as a whole and attempt to harmonize all clauses of the contract.” Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc.
Shamrock Sod & Landscaping, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc. , d 522, 525 (Minn. 1990).
Abdiaziz H. Hirsi, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc. , (“[Appellate courts] attempt to avoid an interpretation o f the contract that would render a provision meaningless.”).
In re the Marriage of: Catherine Elizabeth Welch, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
of Ramsey , Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc.
Crow Wing Cooperative Power and Light Company, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When the parties’ intent is “totally ascertainable” from a contract, this court’s task is to “construe [the] contract as a whole and attempt to harmonize all clauses of the contract.” Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., -26 (Minn. 1990).
The Bluffs on Sans Pierre Townhomes and Villas Association, Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc.
In re the Marriage of: Sonja Vogen Baertsch, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., (“We construe a contract as a whole and attempt to harmonize all clauses of the contract.”); see also Hickman, d at 369.
Scott Trebelhorn, d/b/a Trebelhorn & Associates, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“We construe a contract as a whole and attempt to harmonize all of its clauses.” Storms, Inc. , d at 776 (citing Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., ).
DeWitt v. London Road Rental Center, Inc. 899 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
DeWitt v. London Road Rental Center, Inc. 899 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Art Goebel, Inc., d at 515 ; Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., -26 (Minn. 1990) (explaining that supreme court “construe[s] a contract as a whole and attempts] to harmonize all clauses of the contract” and “will attempt to avoid an interpretation of the contract that would render a provision meaningless”).
St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Carter 899 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Carter 899 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc.
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
Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc.
Waseca County v. Minnesota Department of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Waseca County v. Minnesota Department of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
of Ramsey, see also Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., (stating that “[appellate courts] will attempt to avoid an interpretation of the contract that would render a provision meaningless”).
Nuvola, LLC v. Morgan Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Nuvola, LLC v. Morgan Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., (stating that because courts presume that parties intend contract language to have effect, courts “will attempt to avoid an interpretation of the contract that would render a provision meaningless”).
Contractors Edge, Inc. v. City of Mankato Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Contractors Edge, Inc. v. City of Mankato Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc.
Randy Lubben v. Copart, Inc., Metro Salvage Pool, Inc. d/b/a Metro Remarketing, and Copart, Inc., Third Party v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Randy Lubben v. Copart, Inc., Metro Salvage Pool, Inc. d/b/a Metro Remarketing, and Copart, Inc., Third Party v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
6 contract.” Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc.
In re the Marriage of: James Allen Ertl v. Diane Martha Ertl 871 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: James Allen Ertl v. Diane Martha Ertl 871 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“In interpreting a contract, the language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning.”); see also Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., -26 (Minn. 1990) (presuming that parties intended the language used to have effect and cautioning courts against interpreting contracts so as to render a provision meaningless); Hunt v. IBM Mid Am.
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
Concepts, Inc. v. Irie Enters., Inc., Chergosky 5 v. Crosstown Bell, Inc.
In re the Marriage of: Brian D. Peterson v. Joyce Marie Deeb Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Brian D. Peterson v. Joyce Marie Deeb Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., d 522, 525 (Minn. 1990).
Rotary Systems, Inc. v. TomoTherapy Incorporated, Dynamic Sealing Technologies, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2014