Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. General Mills, Inc., 470 N.W.2d 118.

32 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: T. M. A. and M. J. R., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: T. M. A. and M. J. R., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Mills, Inc., see also State by Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc., (observing that, “[,] the supreme court explained that freedom of contract has not been recognized as a fundamental right sufficient to invoke strict judicial scrut
Sandra Weise v. Alan M. Powell Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Sandra Weise v. Alan M. Powell Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Mills, Inc., (“Where a written contract is unambiguous, the court must deduce the parties’ intent from the language used.”).
Lynn Peterson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Mills, Inc., (reasoning that “sophisticated parties .
North Loop Downtown, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Sports Facilities Comm’n v. General Mills, Inc.
WAF-2, LLC v. Lowry Building, LLC, and third party v. John R. Rupp, third party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
WAF-2, LLC v. Lowry Building, LLC, and third party v. John R. Rupp, third party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Sports Facilities Comm’n v. General Mills, Inc., aff’d.
Marisa Hunt v. State of Minnesota, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees - Minnesota Council 5 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marisa Hunt v. State of Minnesota, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees - Minnesota Council 5 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Gregory B. Lindwall v. Country Preferred Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Gregory B. Lindwall v. Country Preferred Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Paradigm Enterprises, Inc. v. Westfield National Insurance Co. 738 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Paradigm Enterprises, Inc. v. Westfield National Insurance Co. 738 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Anderson v. McOskar Enterprises, Inc. 712 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Anderson v. McOskar Enterprises, Inc. 712 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Mills, Inc., (where the language of a contract is plain and unambiguous, the court must enforce the contract as written).
In Re GlaxoSmithKline Plc 713 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re GlaxoSmithKline Plc 713 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Mills, Inc., (discerning the intent of the parties from the plain language of the agreement).
Isaacs v. American Iron & Steel Co. 690 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Isaacs v. American Iron & Steel Co. 690 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Mills, Inc., -23 (Minn.1991).
Travertine Corp. v. Lexington-Silverwood 683 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2004
Travertine Corp. v. Lexington-Silverwood 683 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2004
Northern States Power Co. v. City of Mendota Heights 646 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Northern States Power Co. v. City of Mendota Heights 646 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Mills, Inc., (rejecting “groundless separation of powers claim” that is clothed in meritless procedural due process claim).
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
A court’s primary role in interpreting contracts is to “ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties.” Metropolitan Sports Facilities Comm’n v. General Mills, Inc., -23 (Minn.1991).
Boschee v. Duevel 530 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Boschee v. Duevel 530 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Comm’n v. General Mills, Inc.
Dacotah Properties—Richfield, Inc. v. Prairie Island Indian Community 520 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Dacotah Properties—Richfield, Inc. v. Prairie Island Indian Community 520 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See Metropolitan Sports Facility Comm’n v. General Mills, (when terms of 'contract are unambiguous, court must look solely to the language of the contract itself).
Williams v. Harris 518 N.W.2d 864 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Williams v. Harris 518 N.W.2d 864 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Comm’n v. General Mills