Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., 666 N.W.2d 339.

130 citing documents.

Susan Neegard v. Valley Golf Association Minn. Ct. App. 2026
If the terms of a contract are unambiguous, the language “must be given its plain and ordinary meaning.” Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., -47 (Minn. 2003) (quotation omitted).
Maple Grove NBC, LLC v. Cake Gals Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co.
In the Matter of the Arthur F. Symens Revocable Trust created September 21, 2016 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
review de novo a district court’s interpretation of a written document, which in this case is the Trust Agreement”); Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., (“The construction and effect of a contract is .
Mark Lukens, et al v. Snowman Construction, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“If a contract is unambiguous, the contract language must be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and shall be enforced by courts even if the result is harsh.” Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., -47 (Minn. 2003) (quotation omitted).
Daniel Hatlevig v. Jason Schott, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
a question of law unless the contract is ambiguous.” Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co.
In re the Marriage of: Melissa Sydney Reed Lesch v. John Patrick Lesch Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co.
Distinctive Iron, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, et al., vs. Vulcraft Sales Corporation, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“A contract is ambiguous if, based upon its language alone, it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation.” 8 (quoting Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., ).
In re the Matter of the Trusteeships Under the Trust Indentures between the City of Edwardsville, Kansas and … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co.
Eagle’s Landing Owners Association v. Philip Cleary, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
12 of law unless the contract is ambiguous.” Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., d 339, 346 (Minn. 2003).
In re the Marriage of: Lauren Elizabeth Schrock v. Richard Albert Kuhn Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Interpretation of an ambiguous stipulated order is a question of fact, see Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., (contract), and “[w]e defer to a district court’s interpretation of its own order,” rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000); (“Construction of its own decree by the trial court must be gi
Doug Hoskin v. Josh Krsnak, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Doug Hoskin v. Josh Krsnak, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“If a contract is unambiguous, the contract language must be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and shall be enforced by courts even if the result is harsh.” Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., -47 (Minn. 2003) (quotation omitted).
Calvin D. Boquist v. David Zierman, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co.
1648 Properties, LLC, et al v. Morrisun Sund, PLLC Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. TempWorks Mgmt.
Ryan Alvar, et al v. Nicollet Residences, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., d 339, 346 (Minn. 2003).
Clarence Hightower v. Community Action Partnership of Ramsey and Washington Counties Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“If a contract is unambiguous, the contract language must be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and shall be enforced by courts even if the result is harsh.” Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., -47 (Minn. 2003) (quotation omitted).
Fitness International, LLC v. City Center Ventures, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2023
When reviewing contract ual language, the “construction and effect of a contract” is a question of law reviewed de novo “unless the contract is ambiguous.” Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co. , .
EDF-RE US Development, LLC v. RES America Construction, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“If a contract is unambiguous, the contract language must be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and shall be enforced by courts even if the result is harsh.” Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., -47 (Minn. 2003) (quotation omitted).
Mesabi Metallics Company, LLC, et al v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minn. Ct. App. 2022
When language in a contract is unambiguous, “the contract language must be given its plain and ordinary meaning.” Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., -47 (Minn. 2003) (quotation omitted).
JanOne Inc., formerly known as Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc. v. Skybridge Americas, Inc. 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”).
Matthew Braith, et al v. Laurie Ann Duban, et al., Aaron Todd Kasparek, and Nicole Lynn Campbell f/k/a … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., 346 (Minn. 2003).
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Viroment USA, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A contract is ambiguous if, based upon its language alone, it is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation.” Denelsbeck v. We lls Fargo & Co ., (quotation omitted).
Aaron J. Harkins, Minn. 2022
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co.
Scott Mathias v. Ann Lee Coleman Living Trust, dated March 21, 2018 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., –47 (Minn. 2003).
GGG, Incorporation v. Jon T. Samuelson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., Metro Office Parks, d at 123.
Theresa K. Williams, Personal Representative of the Estate of Kristen Nicole Kuether v. William M. Kuether Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“If a contract is unambiguous, the contract language must be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and shall be enforced by courts ev en if the result is harsh.” Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co. , -47 (Minn. 2003) (quotation omitted).
David Timp, et al v. Deborah Gibbs, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
When the language is clear and unambiguous, the court enforces the agreement of the parties as expressed in the language of the contract, “even if the result is harsh.” Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., -47 (Minn. 2003).
Gerald L. Trooien v. Talon OP, L.P., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., -47 (Minn. 2003).
In re the Estate of: Frank Joseph Soboleski, Deceased, and In re the Estate of: Renee Maxine Soboleski, … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
If a contract ual provision is unambiguous, the contract must be given its plain and ordinary meaning, Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., -47 (Minn. 2003), and a court should not “rewrite, modify, or limit its effect by strained construction,” Travertine Corp. v. Lexington - 7 Silverwood, , nor consider evidence of the parties’ conduct after signing an agreement.
R&S Crossing, LLC v. AF Enterprises, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co.
Francis J. Schumacher v. KMLE, INC., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A contract is ambiguous if, based upon its language alone, it is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation.” Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., (quotation omitted).
AllenMax Construction, LLC, et al v. The Wright Group, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
a question of law unless the contract is ambiguous.” Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co.
Daniel Call v. Ralph Call, Winco, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co.
Donna Delfino v. Medtronic, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See id; see also S. Pine Helicopters, Inc. v. Phoenix Aviation Managers, Inc. , 320 F.3d 838, 841 (8th Cir. 2003) (indicating that what constitutes a violation of federal regulations is a matter of law) ; Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co. , (stating that “determining compliance with a regulation .
Abdiaziz H. Hirsi v. ARCH Language Network, Inc. d/b/a ARCH Language, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co.
In the Matter of: American Home Mortgage Assets Trust 2007-5 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
2002); see also Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co. , -47 (Minn. 2003).
Ellen Kalahar-Grissom v. Marvin W. Stroschein, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Concepts, Inc. v. Irie Enter., Inc., Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., - 47 (Minn. 2003) (noting that “the interpretation of an ambiguous contract is a question of fact for the jury”).
Crow Wing Cooperative Power and Light Company v. Great River Energy, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., -47 (Minn. 2003).
Gill v. Gill 919 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2018
Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. Tempworks Mgmt. Servs., Inc. 913 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 2018
Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. Tempworks Mgmt. Servs., Inc. 913 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 2018
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co. , , 346 (Minn. 2003).
Allan H. Zuehlsdorf v. Carolyn A. Bernard, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Unambiguous contract language “must be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and sh all be enforced by the courts even if the result is harsh.” Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., -47 (Minn. 2003).
Scott Trebelhorn, d/b/a Trebelhorn & Associates v. Abhishek Agrawal, RTS Financial Group, LLC 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. , ).
Jeremiah Akinnola v. Southampton Apartments, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co.
City Center Commons, LLC v. DeSoto Associates, LLC 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., (quotation omitted).
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
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., -47 (Minn. 2003).
Harper & Peterson, P.L.L.C. v. John W. Seckinger Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Harper & Peterson, P.L.L.C. v. John W. Seckinger Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A contract is ambiguous if “it is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation.” Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co.
Suncom, LLC v. Robert Feuling d/b/a West Side Liquors of Sartell, LLC, and West Side Liquors of Sartell, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by