Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hubred v. Control Data Corp., 442 N.W.2d 308.

311 citing documents.

Lupe Development Partners v. City of Minneapolis 472 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Lupe Development Partners v. City of Minneapolis 472 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Denike v. WESTERN NAT. MUT. INS. CO. 473 N.W.2d 370 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Noland v. Soo Line Railroad 474 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Noland v. Soo Line Railroad 474 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Otto v. Otto 472 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Otto v. Otto 472 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
City of West St. Paul v. Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. 466 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
City of West St. Paul v. Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. 466 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Hubred v. Control Data *29 Corp.
State Ex Rel. Minneapolis Park Lovers v. City of Minneapolis 468 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State Ex Rel. Minneapolis Park Lovers v. City of Minneapolis 468 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Costello v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 463 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Costello v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 463 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Henkemeyer v. Boxall 465 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Henkemeyer v. Boxall 465 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Levin v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 465 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Levin v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 465 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
(“[NJothing in our opinion in Atwater [] suggests that the doctrine of reasonable-expectations is not to be applied except in the presence of peculiar circumstances such as ambiguity or a hidden exclusion.”); Centennial I
Sicoli v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 464 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Sicoli v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 464 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of Impola v. Impola 464 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of Impola v. Impola 464 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Larsen v. Northwestern National Life Insurance Co. 463 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Larsen v. Northwestern National Life Insurance Co. 463 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Duane Wolff Agency, Inc. v. Northshore Marine, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Duane Wolff Agency, Inc. v. Northshore Marine, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Hamlin v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 461 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Hamlin v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 461 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Otto v. City of St. Paul 460 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Otto v. City of St. Paul 460 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
On matters of law, “no deference need be given to the decisions below.” (citation omitted).
Rivers v. Richard Schwartz/Neil Weber, Inc. 459 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
United Shippers Cooperative v. Soukup 459 N.W.2d 343 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Fingerhut Corp. v. Suburban National Bank 460 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Fingerhut Corp. v. Suburban National Bank 460 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Rivers v. Richard Schwartz/Neil Weber, Inc. 459 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
the supreme court stated that the doctrine does not remove from the insured the responsibility to read the policy, but does not hold the insured to an unreasonable level of understanding.
United Shippers Cooperative v. Soukup 459 N.W.2d 343 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Farmers & Merchants Bank of Preston v. Junge 458 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Farmers & Merchants Bank of Preston v. Junge 458 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Warmka v. Wells Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 458 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Warmka v. Wells Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 458 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Hubred v. Control *697 Data Corp.
E.H. Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Sherburne Homes Inc. 458 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
E.H. Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Sherburne Homes Inc. 458 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
National Indemnity Co. of Minnesota v. Ness 457 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
National Indemnity Co. of Minnesota v. Ness 457 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Federated Mutual Insurance Co. v. Litchfield Precision Components, Inc. 456 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 1990
Federated Mutual Insurance Co. v. Litchfield Precision Components, Inc. 456 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 1990
ndards of review regarding the trial court’s order denying appellants’ motions: “whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief,” (motion to dismiss), and “whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law,” (summary judgment).
Engel v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 455 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Engel v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 455 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
: It is true that nothing in our opinion in Atwater suggests that the doctrine of reasonable expectations is not to be applied except in the presence of peculiar circumstances such as ambiguity or hidden exclusion.
Horvath v. Liquid Controls Corp. 455 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Horvath v. Liquid Controls Corp. 455 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc. 454 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 1990