Cited by

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

88 citing documents.

Rotary Systems, Inc. v. TomoTherapy Incorporated, Dynamic Sealing Technologies, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Co., -82 (Minn. 2010); Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., -26 (Minn. 1990).
Sheryl Aarnio v. Village Bank, Christensen Law Office, PLLC, third party Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Sheryl Aarnio v. Village Bank, Christensen Law Office, PLLC, third party Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., (“We construe a contract as a whole and attempt to harmonize all clauses of the contract.”).
Roger Ochsner v. Relco Unisystems Corporation, and RELCO, LLC v. A. Kent Keller Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Roger Ochsner v. Relco Unisystems Corporation, and RELCO, LLC v. A. Kent Keller Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Because of the presumption that the parties intended the language used to have effect, [appellate courts] will attempt to avoid an interpretation of the contract that would render a provision meaningless.” Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, 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
See Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc.
MidCountry Bank v. Krueger 782 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 2010
MidCountry Bank v. Krueger 782 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 2010
See Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., -25 (Minn.1990).
National City Bank v. Engler 777 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
National City Bank v. Engler 777 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The court must “construe a contract as a whole and attempt to harmonize all clauses of the contract.” Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc.
Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. v. Elfelt 756 N.W.2d 501 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. v. Elfelt 756 N.W.2d 501 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Accordingly, Minnesota is a race-notice jurisdiction, meaning that “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.
Mavco, Inc. v. Eggink 739 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2007
Mavco, Inc. v. Eggink 739 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2007
“Under the Minnesota Recording Act, a bona fide purchaser who records first obtains rights to the property which are superior to a prior purchaser who failed to record.” 6 Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc.
River Valley Truck Center, Inc. v. Interstate Companies 704 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 2005
Stiglich Construction, Inc. v. Larson 621 N.W.2d 801 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Stiglich Construction, Inc. v. Larson 621 N.W.2d 801 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., -26 (Minn.1990).
Burke v. Fine 608 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Burke v. Fine 608 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc.
Zimmerman v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 593 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Zimmerman v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 593 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., (stating that courts will attempt to avoid *251 interpretation of contract that would render provision meaningless); Waseca Mut.
Bruggeman v. Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. 591 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1999
Bruggeman v. Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. 591 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1999
See Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., (citing Minn.Stat.
Santillan v. Martine 560 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Santillan v. Martine 560 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See Eckert v. Eckert, 299 Minn. 120, 124, (holding court may not renew maintenance after end of original term); see also Cher-gosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., (avoiding interpretation that would render provision meaningless).
Carlson Real Estate Co. v. Soltan 549 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Carlson Real Estate Co. v. Soltan 549 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., (courts “attempt to avoid an interpretation of [a] contract that would render a provision meaningless”).
Banbury v. Omnitrition International, Inc. 533 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Banbury v. Omnitrition International, Inc. 533 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., (courts should “attempt to harmonize all clauses of [a] contract”).
In Re Hennepin County 1986 Recycling Bond Litigation 517 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In Re Hennepin County 1986 Recycling Bond Litigation 517 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Drake v. Ryan 498 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Drake v. Ryan 498 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
It is an established principle that courts “construe a contract as a whole and attempt to harmonize all clauses of the contract.” Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc.
Marriage of Auer v. Scott 494 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Auer v. Scott 494 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
see also Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., (when interpreting contracts, courts presume parties intend language used to have effect and “will attempt to avoid an interpretation of the contract that would render a provision meaningless”).
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. General Mills, Inc. 470 N.W.2d 118 Minn. 1991
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. General Mills, Inc. 470 N.W.2d 118 Minn. 1991
See Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., -26 (Minn.1990).