Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Brookfield Trade Center, Inc. v. County of Ramsey, 584 N.W.2d 390.

342 citing documents.

County of Hennepin v. Jill Kline Rochford, Ross Edgar Trooien Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Statutory construction is a matter of law, which this court reviews de novo.” (citing Brookfield Trade Ctr., ).
Life Fitness, LLC v. Anthony S. Dahmen, Bruce Banker Minn. Ct. App. 2026
When interpreting a contract, “the language is 5 to be given its plain and ordinary meaning.” Brookfield Trade Ctr.
Susan Neegard v. Valley Golf Association Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Brookfield Trade Ctr., (“We read contract terms in the context of the entire contract and .
In the Matter of the Ronald E. Roehrs Trust Dated August 9, 1999 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The disputed language should be considered in the context of the instrument as a whole and “in such a way as to give meaning to all of its provisions.” Brookfield Trade Ctr., (stating also that courts “read contract terms in the context of the entire contract”).
Distinctive Iron, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, et al., vs. Vulcraft Sales Corporation, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Monica Mohn, et al v. City Homes on Park Avenue Owners’ Association Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“In interpreting a contract, the language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning.” Brookfield Trade Ctr.
In re the Matter of: Rodney Tristan Miller (Deceased) v. Pamela Marie Spera FKA Pamela Marie Miller, Maria … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We therefore conclude that Spera’s interpretation is unreasonable because it departs from established 8 principles of contract construction that require provisions to be harmonized and interpreted “in such a way as to give meaning to all of its provisions.” Brookfield Trade Ctr., (“[I]n arriving at the meaning of a judgment or decree, the judgment as a whole should be considered in interpreting any particular clause or sentence therein[.]”); (applying the r
2700 Hennepin LLC v. VPC Minneapolis Uptown Pizza, LLC, VPC Pizza Operating Corp. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
2700 Hennepin LLC v. VPC Minneapolis Uptown Pizza, LLC, VPC Pizza Operating Corp. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Co., but we “will not construe the terms so as to lead to a harsh and absurd result,” Brookfield Trade Ctr.
Board of Directors, Colony by the Greens Townhome Association v. Jackie Santopietro Minn. Ct. App. 2023
” Brookfield Trade Ctr., Inc. v. County of Ramsey , .
Jeffrey D. Kuhn v. Richard G. Dunn, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Appellate courts “read contract terms in the context of the entire contract and will not construe the terms so as to lead to a harsh and absurd result.” Brookfield Trade Ctr.
Fitness International, LLC v. City Center Ventures, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Brookfield Trade Ctr., Inc. v. C ounty of Ramsey, .
Trygve Svard v. Camelot Nine Encore Association Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The construction and effect of a contract presents a question of law, unless an ambiguity exists.” Brookfield Trade Ctr., see also Storms, Inc. v. Mathy Constr.
Aaron J. Harkins, Minn. 2022
Robert L. Meller, Jr., et al v. City Heights Condominium at Center Village, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Charles Wahren v. Kate Radz, a/k/a Katherine Verzhbitska-Radzills Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Brookfield Trade Ctr., Current Technology Concepts, Inc. v. Irie Enters ., Inc.
In re the Matter of: Jennifer Lynn Gaughan v. Patrick Michael Gaughan Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Nell Mathews, et al. Appellants v. City of the Village of Minnetonka Beach, Vanessa Abraham, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Catherine Elizabeth Welch v. William Warrick Welch, III Minn. Ct. App. 2019
of Ramsey , Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc.
Sehlstrom v. Sehlstrom 925 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 2019
Sehlstrom v. Sehlstrom 925 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 2019
Brookfield Trade Ctr., Inc. v. County of Ramsey , , 394 (Minn. 1998).
Gill v. Gill 919 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2018
Medtronic, Inc., et al v. Matthew Dominic Petitti, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Adherent Laboratories, Inc. v. Mark DiPietro, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Estate of Anna McMullen, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Jean Rucker v. Kraig Vernon Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Jean Rucker v. Kraig Vernon Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jennifer L. Mandel and Eric P. Mandel, Relators v. Commissioner of Revenue 888 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2016
Jennifer L. Mandel and Eric P. Mandel, Relators v. Commissioner of Revenue 888 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2016
of Ramsey, -93 (Minn. 1998).
Steven T. Meister, M. D., et al., John Does, et al v. Avera Marshall d/b/a Avera Marshall Regional … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Steven T. Meister, M. D., et al., John Does, et al v. Avera Marshall d/b/a Avera Marshall Regional … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Waseca County, et al v. Minnesota Department of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Waseca County, et al 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”).
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
When interpreting a contract, “the language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning,” and a contract should be interpreted “in such a way as to give meaning to all of its provisions.” Brookfield Trade Ctr.
Michael N. Palm, Sr. v. Calhoun Realty Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael N. Palm, Sr. v. Calhoun Realty Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Anchor Bank, N. A v. Matthew L. Gulbransen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Anchor Bank, N. A v. Matthew L. Gulbransen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
of Ramsey, n.1 (Minn. 1998) (“We have determined that the contract is unambiguous and, therefore, we may not consider extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent.”).
Liza A. Robson, Trustee of The Ann S. Fischer Living Trust u/d/t February 2, 1995, et al v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Liza A. Robson, Trustee of The Ann S. Fischer Living Trust u/d/t February 2, 1995, et al v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
of Ramsey, (citation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Jo Ellen M. Healy v. John Henry Healy, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Matthew J. Covington v. Alyssa Eckstrom, and Eileen Eckstrom, Third Party Intervenor, Dale … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Jo Ellen M. Healy v. John Henry Healy, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Matthew J. Covington v. Alyssa Eckstrom, and Eileen Eckstrom, Third Party Intervenor, Dale … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
of Ramsey, (applying de novo review to questions of statutory interpretation).
Timothy E. Lewis v. Paul J. Borchert, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Timothy E. Lewis v. Paul J. Borchert, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Sheryl Aarnio, et al v. Village Bank, et al., Christensen Law Office, PLLC, third party petitioner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Sheryl Aarnio, et al v. Village Bank, et al., Christensen Law Office, PLLC, third party petitioner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
of Ramsey, (“In interpreting a contract, the language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning.”).
Martha Gabriela, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company v. Barranca, LLC, et al., Green Mill Restaurants, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014