Cited by

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

130 citing documents.

Susan Neegard, Appellant, 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).
A25-1555 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., Respondents, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
a question of law unless the contract is ambiguous.” Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co.
Distinctive Iron, LLC, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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: 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 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Doug Hoskin v. Josh Krsnak 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co.
1648 Properties, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. TempWorks Mgmt.
Ryan Alvar, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., d 339, 346 (Minn. 2003).
Clarence Hightower, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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., Appellants, 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., 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”).
Matthew Braith, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., 346 (Minn. 2003).
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Respondent, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., –47 (Minn. 2003).
GGG, Incorporation, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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., Respondents, 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).
A19-1654 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., -47 (Minn. 2003).
A19-1347 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co.
Francis J. Schumacher, Respondent, 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).
A19-0006 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
a question of law unless the contract is ambiguous.” Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co.
Daniel Call, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co.
Donna Delfino, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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, Respondent, 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, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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, 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. , ).
Jeremiah Akinnola, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co.
City Center Commons, LLC, 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., (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