Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Art Goebel, Inc. v. North Suburban Agencies, Inc., 567 N.W.2d 511.

87 citing documents.

Edgar C. Ray v. Timothy Roen Kraft, aka T. Roen Kraft aka Roen Kraft, Mark Hoiseth, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Edgar C. Ray v. Timothy Roen Kraft, aka T. Roen Kraft aka Roen Kraft, Mark Hoiseth, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc.
Daniel Hatlevig, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“A contract is ambiguous if, based upon its language alone, it is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation.” Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc.
In the Matter of the Calculation of MSRS General Employees Retirement Plan Annuity for Francisco Henderson. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“A contract is ambiguous if, based upon its language alone, it is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation.” Art Goebel
Michael L. Pogreba v. Lorraine Pogreba, Janet Bowen Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Michael L. Pogreba v. Lorraine Pogreba, Janet Bowen Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A writing is ambiguous if “it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation.” Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc.
Arch Insurance Company, as subrogee of Centre Rental, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The cardinal purpose of construing a contract is to give effect to the intention of the parties as expressed in the language they used in drafting the whole contract.” Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc.
Michael Bartell, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Suburban Agencies, Inc., - 16 (Minn. 1997) (holding that a clear and definite indemnity clause in a written contract waive s a party’s right to common- law indemnity).
State of Minnesota, Minnesota Judicial Branch, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc. , 15 (Minn. 1997).
North Loop Downtown, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
However, “[a] 5 contract is ambiguous if, based upon its language alone, it is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation.” Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc.
Christina Ginther, Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See , e.g., Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc., -16 (Minn. 1997) (explaining that a “clear and unambiguous” indemnity clause showed the parties intended that their agreement provided for their 10 Indemnification is an equitable remedy that “shifts the entire loss from one tortfeasor who has been compelled to pay it to the shoulders of another” who in fa
Daniel D. Oberpriller, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When a contract is formed, “[t]he cardinal purpose of construing a contract is to give effect to the intention of the parties as expressed in the language they used in drafting the whole contract.” Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies , .
Abdiaziz H. Hirsi, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A contract is ambiguous if, based upon its language alone, it is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation.” Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc.
David Anderson, et al., Plaintiffs, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Suburban Agencies, Inc. , ; see Pollock-Halvarson v. McGuire , (stating that “[p]eople have a right to make legal contracts and to expect the courts to honor and give binding effect to their agreements” and that district courts lack “authority to invalidate unwise or improvident agree
Crow Wing Cooperative Power and Light Company, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
in isolation,” but rather look to “the meaning assigned to the words or phrases in accordance with the apparent purpose of the contract as a whole.” Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc.
Gill v. Gill 919 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2018
Talon Bren Road, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
But our interpretation of a contract does not depend upon “words or phrases read in isolation, but rather upon the meaning assigned to the words or phrases in accordance with the apparent purpose of the contract as a whole.” Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc.
Minn. 2018
See Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc., (“[A mbiguity] depends, not upon words or phrases read in isolation, but rather upon the meaning assigned to the words or phrases in accordance with the apparent purpose of the contract as a 15 whole.”).
Scott Trebelhorn, d/b/a Trebelhorn & Associates, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A contract is ambiguous if, based upon its language alone , it is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation.” Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., (quoting Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc. , ).
DeWitt v. London Road Rental Center, Inc. 899 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
DeWitt v. London Road Rental Center, Inc. 899 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc., (noting that “[t]he cardinal purpose of construing a contract is to give effect, to the intention of the parties as expressed in the language they used in drafting the whole .contract”); see also Badiee v. Brighton Area Sch., 265 Mich.App.
St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Carter 899 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Carter 899 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban, Agencies, Inc.
Glacial Plains Cooperative v. Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co. 897 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Glacial Plains Cooperative v. Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co. 897 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This, as the district court noted, is contrary to our supreme court’s guidance *840 that “[t]he cardinal purpose of construing a contract is to give effect to the intention of the parties as expressed in the language they used in drafting the whole contract.” Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc.
Doran Development, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc.
Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. TempWorks Management Services, Inc. 896 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. TempWorks Management Services, Inc. 896 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A contract is ambiguous if, based upon its language alone, it is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation.” Art Goe-bel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc.
Martin Bell v. Leonard Street and Deinard Professional Association Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Martin Bell v. Leonard Street and Deinard Professional Association Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc.
Franklin C. Olson v. Rustic Bar, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Franklin C. Olson v. Rustic Bar, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc.
In the Matter of the Estate of: John Stanley LaSha Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Estate of: John Stanley LaSha Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A contract is ambiguous if, based upon its language alone, it is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation.” Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc.
Roger Ochsner v. Relco Unisystems Corporation, and RELCO, LLC v. A. Kent Keller Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Roger Ochsner v. Relco Unisystems Corporation, and RELCO, LLC v. A. Kent Keller Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The cardinal purpose of construing a contract is to give effect to the intention of the parties as expressed in the language they used in drafting the whole contract.” Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc., d 511, 515 (Minn. 1997).
Savela v. City of Duluth 806 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2011
Horodenski v. Lyndale Green Townhome Ass'n 804 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Horodenski v. Lyndale Green Townhome Ass'n 804 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc., (contract); Thorson v. Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass’n, (statute), review denied (Minn. Dec.
NC Properties, LLC v. Lind 797 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
NC Properties, LLC v. Lind 797 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Art Goebel, Inc. v. North Suburban Agencies, Inc.
Sayer v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 790 N.W.2d 151 Minn. 2010
Sayer v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 790 N.W.2d 151 Minn. 2010
See Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc., (“A contract is ambiguous if, based upon its language alone, it is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation.”).
301 Clifton Place L.L.C. v. 301 Clifton Place Condominium Ass'n 783 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
301 Clifton Place L.L.C. v. 301 Clifton Place Condominium Ass'n 783 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, *565 Inc., Turner v. Alpha Phi Sorority House, 276 & N.W.2d 63, 66 (Minn.1979).
Halla Nursery, Inc. v. City of Chanhassen 781 N.W.2d 880 Minn. 2010
Halla Nursery, Inc. v. City of Chanhassen 781 N.W.2d 880 Minn. 2010
Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc.
Graff v. ROBERT M. SWENDRA AGENCY, INC. 776 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Graff v. ROBERT M. SWENDRA AGENCY, INC. 776 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Co., 312 Minn. 324, 331, 344-46 , 120-21 (1977) (noting that the only party found negligent was the attorney Ranta, not the Hills, who received indemnity as the agents of Okay); Art Goebel v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc., (noting that the agent's conduct was "undisputedly non-negligent”), rev’d on other grounds
George v. Evenson 754 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2008