Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Morrisette v. Harrison International Corp., 486 N.W.2d 424.

52 citing documents.

Gary Frodermann, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Morrisette v. Harrison Int’ l Corp.
Joey Gunderson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp., (formation); H.P.
Les Grumdahl Window & Siding LLC, A Minnesota Limited Liability Company v. Holly Brown, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Les Grumdahl Window & Siding LLC, A Minnesota Limited Liability Company v. Holly Brown, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp., (stating that “the existence and terms of a contract are questions for the fact finder”).
Homestead Acres Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Hiscox Insurance Company, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Homestead Acres Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Hiscox Insurance Company, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp.
A23-0039 A23-0041 A23-0277 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
t court properly determined that it lacked the authority to enforce the purported settlement agreement.3 3 Though we need not reach Brent’s argument that the district court erred in determining that the parties did not reach a binding agreement during the mediation, we note that “The existence and terms of a contract are questions for the fact finder.” Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp.
Smart Construction & Remodeling, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Id.; see Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp.
In re the Estate of: Roger D. Lewis, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp.
JanOne Inc., formerly known as Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
But, if in dispute, “the existence and terms of a contract are questions for the fact finder.” Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp., see Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., (stating that “the interpretation of an ambiguous contract is a question of fact”).
Amanda Emele, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“[T]he existence and terms of a contr act are questions for the fact finder.” Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp.
Aspen Builders and Remodelers, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp.
TC Investment Group, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Although the existence and terms of a contract are questions of fact, Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp. , (Minn .
Khalif Jama, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(noting that appellate courts defer to dis trict court’ s opportunity to weigh and evaluate witness credibility); Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp., (recognizing that “the existence and terms of a contract are questions for the fact finder”).
Taofeek Ishola, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp.
GGG, Incorporation, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[T]he existence and terms of a contract are questions for the fact finder,” Morrisette v. Harrison Int ’l. Co., but “[t]he construction and effect of a contract are questions of law subject to de novo review by this court.” Logan v. Norwest Bank Minn ., 19 (Minn. App. 1999) ().
Laurie Jatho, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[T]he existence and terms of a contract are questions for the fact finder.” Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp.
Paul Stepnes, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The existence of a contract is a question of fact, Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp. , but summary judgment is appropriate if “a rational trier of fact could not find for the nonmoving party” based on the record as a whole
Fern Hill Place Retail Association, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[T]he existence and terms of a contra ct are questions for the fact finder.” Morrisette v. Harri son Int’l Corp.
Hearing Associates, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
If the parties dispute whether a contract exists, “the existence and terms of a contract are questions for the fact finder.” Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp., d 424, 427 (Minn. 1992).
The Valspar Corporation, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[T]he existence and terms of a contract are questions for the fact finder.” Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp.
The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificateholders of … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificateholders of … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
When there is a dispute as to what is included within a contract, “the existence and terms of a contract are questions for the fact finder.” Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp.
In re the Marriage of: Thomas Erle Tornstrom v. Jennifer Lynn Tornstrom, n/k/a Jennifer Lynn Klemenhagen 887 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Thomas Erle Tornstrom v. Jennifer Lynn Tornstrom, n/k/a Jennifer Lynn Klemenhagen 887 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp., (stating that “the existence and terms of a contract are questions for the fact finder”); Minn. R. Civ.
James F. Christie v. Estate of Dilman Christie, Charles Christie Minn. Ct. App. 2015
James F. Christie v. Estate of Dilman Christie, Charles Christie Minn. Ct. App. 2015
When in doubt, “the existence and terms of a contract are questions for the fact finder.” Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp.
Estate of Lawrence A. Werner by Vivian Eileen Werner, Personal Representative v. Kreg A. Werner, and third party … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michael O'Byrne v. Spring Valley Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michael O'Byrne v. Spring Valley Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
If the parties dispute whether a contract exists, “the existence and 8 terms of a contract are questions for the fact finder.” Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp.
Estate of Lawrence A. Werner by Vivian Eileen Werner, Personal Representative v. Kreg A. Werner, and third party … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Morrisette v. Harrision Int’l Corp.
Builders Commonwealth, Inc. v. Jason Morgan Worsfold Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Builders Commonwealth, Inc. v. Jason Morgan Worsfold Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The existence of a contract and its provisions are factual determinations, Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp., but we interpret the meaning of those provisions de novo, Roemhildt v. Kristall Dev., Inc., review denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).
Thomas B. Olson & Associates, P.A. v. Leffert, Jay & Polglaze, P.A. 756 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Thomas B. Olson & Associates, P.A. v. Leffert, Jay & Polglaze, P.A. 756 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp.
Riley Bros. Construction, Inc. v. Shuck 704 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Riley Bros. Construction, Inc. v. Shuck 704 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Powell v. MVE Holdings, Inc. 626 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Powell v. MVE Holdings, Inc. 626 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
“If in dispute, the existence and terms of a contract are questions for the fact finder.” Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp., (citation omitted).
Abrahamson v. Abrahamson 613 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Abrahamson v. Abrahamson 613 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp.
Gresser v. Hotzler 604 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Gresser v. Hotzler 604 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Bruns v. City of St. Paul 555 N.W.2d 522 Minn. 1996
Bruns v. City of St. Paul 555 N.W.2d 522 Minn. 1996
Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp.
Finke v. State 521 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Finke v. State 521 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Vaughn v. Nelson Bros. Construction 520 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1994
Vaughn v. Nelson Bros. Construction 520 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1994
Corp., where, under subdivision 2 of section 176.041 (1982), jurisdiction did not extend to injuries sustained by an employee hired in Minnesota by an out-of-state employer to work as a traveling electrical line worker outside of Minnesota.