Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Trondson v. Janikula, 458 N.W.2d 679.

66 citing documents.

BDS Laundry Management Company, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Nick Kossick, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Gill v. Gill 919 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2018
Talon Bren Road, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Timothy Aadland, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Suncom, LLC v. Robert Feuling d/b/a West Side Liquors of Sartell, LLC, and West Side Liquors of Sartell, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Suncom, LLC v. Robert Feuling d/b/a West Side Liquors of Sartell, LLC, and West Side Liquors of Sartell, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: David Lee Christensen v. Kathryn Florence Kladek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: David Lee Christensen v. Kathryn Florence Kladek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A district court’s resolution of the meaning of a contract ambiguity “is in the nature of a finding of fact,” which “shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.” (quoting Minn. R. Civ.
In re the Marriage of: Amy Daiker Werger v. Brett Michael Werger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Amy Daiker Werger v. Brett Michael Werger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Generally, a document is ambiguous if it “is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning.” (making a similar statement regarding a provision in a stipulated dissolution judgment).
First American Title Insurance Company v. National Title Resources Corp., dba Northwest Title Agency, Co-Appellants, Wayne Holstad Minn. Ct. App. 2016
First American Title Insurance Company v. National Title Resources Corp., dba Northwest Title Agency, Co-Appellants, Wayne Holstad Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Randy Lundgren v. Diane Cash Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Randy Lundgren v. Diane Cash Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jerrod Matthew Brown v. Amanda Marie Spoden, n/k/a Amanda Vinkemeier Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jerrod Matthew Brown v. Amanda Marie Spoden, n/k/a Amanda Vinkemeier Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A prior 11 order is ambiguous if it “is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning.” Suleski, d at 339 ().
In re the Marriage of: Becki Anne Suleski, f/k/a Becki Anne Rupe v. Ryan Michael Rupe 855 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Becki Anne Suleski, f/k/a Becki Anne Rupe v. Ryan Michael Rupe 855 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Generally, a document is ambiguous if it “is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning.” d 136, 138 (Minn. App. 1985) (making a similar statement regarding a provision in a stipulated dissolution judgment and decree).
In re the Marriage of: Charles A. T. Gill v. Kathryn E. K. Gill Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Charles A. T. Gill v. Kathryn E. K. Gill Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Landwehr, d at 140; d 679, 682 (Minn. 1990) (recognizing where a contract is ambiguous, the district court’s resolution of ambiguity is treated as a finding of fact).
William O. Bradley v. Carol M. Kelley Minn. Ct. App. 2014
William O. Bradley v. Carol M. Kelley Minn. Ct. App. 2014
When making this determination, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding being challenged, and defer to the district court’s credibility determinations
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. 832 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 2013
In re the Pamela Andreas Stisser Grantor Trust 818 N.W.2d 495 Minn. 2012
In re the Pamela Andreas Stisser Grantor Trust 818 N.W.2d 495 Minn. 2012
When determining whether a finding is clearly erroneous, we “take[] the view of the evidence which is most favorable to the [district] court’s findings,” and defer to the district court’s opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses, (citing Minn. R. Civ.
Savela v. City of Duluth 806 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2011
Johanns v. Minnesota Mobile Storage, Inc. 720 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Johanns v. Minnesota Mobile Storage, Inc. 720 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Border State Bank of Greenbush v. Bagley Livestock Exchange, Inc. 690 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Border State Bank of Greenbush v. Bagley Livestock Exchange, Inc. 690 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
First Construction Credit, Inc. v. Simonson Lumber of Waite Park, Inc. 663 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
First Construction Credit, Inc. v. Simonson Lumber of Waite Park, Inc. 663 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
( “use[s] the terms equitable lien and equitable mortgage interchangeably”); Grace Dev.
Brookfield Trade Center, Inc. v. County of Ramsey 584 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 1998
Brookfield Trade Center, Inc. v. County of Ramsey 584 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 1998
Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg 578 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg 578 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(district court’s resolution of ambiguity in contract treated as finding of fact); Minn. R. Civ.
Arrowhead Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. LTV Steel Mining Co. 568 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Arrowhead Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. LTV Steel Mining Co. 568 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Swanson v. Parkway Estates Townhouse Ass'n 567 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Swanson v. Parkway Estates Townhouse Ass'n 567 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(citing Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 351 , ).
Pine Valley Meats, Inc. v. Canal Capital Corp. 566 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Pine Valley Meats, Inc. v. Canal Capital Corp. 566 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Santillan v. Martine 560 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Santillan v. Martine 560 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(contract interpretation); Hibbing Educ.
Stowell v. Cloquet Co-Op Credit Union 557 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1997
Stowell v. Cloquet Co-Op Credit Union 557 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1997
Employment Relations Bd., (“[Cjonstruction of a statute * * ⅜ is clearly a question of law”); (“[Cjonstruction and effect of a contract presents a question of law, unless an ambiguity exists.”).
Hurlburt v. Northern States Power Co. 549 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 1996
Home Lumber Co. v. Kopfmann Homes, Inc. 535 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 1995
Home Lumber Co. v. Kopfmann Homes, Inc. 535 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 1995
The “[construction and effect of a contract presents a question of law, unless an ambiguity exists.” (citing Hydra-Mac, -17 (Minn.1990)).