Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Mollico v. Mollico, 628 N.W.2d 637.

22 citing documents.

Benchmark Investments, LLC v. Jennifer Mark, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Michael L. Pogreba v. Lorraine Pogreba, et al., Janet Bowen, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Michael L. Pogreba v. Lorraine Pogreba, et al., Janet Bowen, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“[W]hether a written instrument is ambiguous is a question of law subject to de novo review.” (determining that a deed’s language is unambiguous).
Russel D. Stueckrath, et al v. Charles Stueckrath, State Bank of Bellingham, et al., vs. Russel Stueckrath, et … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Where the intent of the parties is totally ascertainable from the writing, construction is for the court.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Estate of Kenneth Edwin Ohlund, a/k/a Kenneth E. Ohlund, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Ryan Carlson, et al v. Township of Livonia Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Mollico v. Mollico , (parol evidence is only admissible if the contract is ambiguous or incomplete).
Diversified Manufacturing Corporation v. MBKV LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2021
GGG, Incorporation v. Jon T. Samuelson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Mollico v. Mollico , (citing Anchor Cas.
Francis J. Schumacher v. KMLE, INC., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(quotation omitted); see also Mollico v. Mollico , - 41 (Minn. App. 2001) (permitting courts to consider parol evidence to resolve ambiguity in real estate contract).
Shari Monica Kristo v. David R. Johnson, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Leslie Davis v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Leslie Davis v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The application of the parol evidence rule is a question of law subject to de novo review.”
Marine Credit Union v. Detlefson-Delano 813 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Marine Credit Union v. Detlefson-Delano 813 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
801, 802 (1924) (stating that the rules for construing contracts apply to deeds) -41 (Minn.App.2001) (applying the parol evidence rule to a deed)).
Marriage of Danielson v. Danielson 721 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Marriage of Danielson v. Danielson 721 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
801, 802 (1924) (stating that the rules for construing contracts apply to deeds); -41 (Minn.App.2001) (applying the parol evidence rule to a deed).
In Re the Estate of Savich 671 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re the Estate of Savich 671 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re Foley Trust 671 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re Foley Trust 671 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
“The application of the parol evidence rule is [also] a question of law subject to de novo review.” Mollico n Mollico
Prairie Island Indian Community v. Minnesota Department of Public Safety 658 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Prairie Island Indian Community v. Minnesota Department of Public Safety 658 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
“A writing is ambiguous if, judged by its language alone and without resort to extrinsic evidence, it is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning.” (citation omitted).