Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cretex Companies, Inc. v. Construction Leaders, Inc., 342 N.W.2d 135.

45 citing documents.

DAMHOF Dairy, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Leaders, Inc., (“We hereby adopt the intended beneficiary approach outlined in Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 302 (1979).”).
Michelin Properties LLC, Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Joint Revocable Trust Agreement of John N. Charais and ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Joint Revocable Trust Agreement of John N. Charais and ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Leaders, Inc., 141 (Minn. 1984) (determining that subcontractors were not intended third-party beneficiaries under a construction contract between a general contractor and a property owner).
Ronald J. Bardine, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Cretex Cos. v. Const. Leaders , -39 (Minn. 1984).
Village Homes of Grandview Square II Association, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Town Center Office Plaza Association, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Estate of: Bernice R. Murray aka Bernice Murray Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Estate of: Bernice R. Murray aka Bernice Murray Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Safety Signs, LLC v. Niles-Wiese Construction Co. 840 N.W.2d 34 Minn. 2013
Safety Signs, LLC v. Niles-Wiese Construction Co. 840 N.W.2d 34 Minn. 2013
Minnesota Laborers Health & Welfare Fund v. Granite RE, Inc. 826 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Minnesota Laborers Health & Welfare Fund v. Granite RE, Inc. 826 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Leaders, Inc., , 139-40 fn.
Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc. 820 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2012
Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc. 820 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2012
Leaders, Inc., see also Hickman, d at 369-70 (stating that an intended beneficiary under a section 302 analysis has a contractual right to enforce a promise); Duluth Lumber & Plywood Co. v. Delta Dev., Inc., -86 (Minn.1979) (applying incidental, intended beneficiary analysis).
Hickman v. SAFECO Insurance Co. of America 695 N.W.2d 365 Minn. 2005
Hickman v. SAFECO Insurance Co. of America 695 N.W.2d 365 Minn. 2005
In Cretex Companies, Inc. v. Construction Leaders, Inc., we adopted the intended beneficiary approach of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, which states: (1) Unless otherwise agreed between promisor and promisee, a beneficiary of a promise is an intended beneficiary if recognition of a right to performance in the beneficiary is appropriate to effectuat
Leamington Co. v. Nonprofits' Ins. Ass'n 615 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 2000
Leamington Co. v. Nonprofits' Ins. Ass'n 615 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 2000
See Cretex Cos. v. Construction Leaders, Inc., (adopting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 302 (1979) rule on third-party beneficiaries).
Wallin v. Minnesota Department of Corrections 598 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Wallin v. Minnesota Department of Corrections 598 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Although plaintiffs may recover for breach of a contract if they are intended beneficiaries of the contract, Cretex Cos. v. Construction Leaders, Inc., Wallin fails to provide any authority for the proposition that a third-party may recover under an agreement reached pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.
614 Co. v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency 547 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
614 Co. v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency 547 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See Chard, -21 (Minn.App.1986) (no reference to plaintiff in contract) (citing Cretex Cos. v. Construction Leaders, Inc., -40 (Minn.1984)), review denied (Minn. Nov.
Rural American Bank of Greenwald v. Herickhoff 485 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1992
Rural American Bank of Greenwald v. Herickhoff 485 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1992
See Cretex Companies, Inc. v. Construction Leaders, Inc.
Concordia College Corp. v. Salvation Army 470 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Concordia College Corp. v. Salvation Army 470 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Mears Park Holding Corp. v. Morse/Diesel, Inc. 427 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Mears Park Holding Corp. v. Morse/Diesel, Inc. 427 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Cretex Companies, Inc. v. Construction Leaders, Inc.
Sernak v. Krenzen Cadillac, Inc. 415 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Sernak v. Krenzen Cadillac, Inc. 415 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Cretex Companies v. Construction Leaders, Inc., the Minnesota Supreme Court described two tests for determining a third party beneficiary: [FJirst an “intent to benefit” test, i.e., the contract must express some intent by the parties to benefit the third-party through contractual performance; and second, a “duty owed” test, i.e., that the promis- or’s
TWIN CITY FED. SAV. & LOAN v. Zimmerman 411 N.W.2d 294 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
TWIN CITY FED. SAV. & LOAN v. Zimmerman 411 N.W.2d 294 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Cretex Companies v. Construction Leaders, Inc., the Minnesota Supreme Court adopted the intended beneficiary approach outlined in Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 302 (1979).
Wurm v. John Deere Leasing Co. 405 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Wurm v. John Deere Leasing Co. 405 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Cretex Companies v. Construction Leaders, Inc.
Strand v. Special School District No. 1 392 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 1986
Strand v. Special School District No. 1 392 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 1986
See Cretex Co., Inc. v. Construction Leaders, Inc.
Chard Realty, Inc. v. City of Shakopee 392 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Chard Realty, Inc. v. City of Shakopee 392 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Butler Manufacturing Co. v. Miranowski 390 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Butler Manufacturing Co. v. Miranowski 390 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Cretex Companies, Inc. v. Construction Leaders, Inc.
Twin City Construction Co. of Fargo v. ITT Industrial Credit Co. 358 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Twin City Construction Co. of Fargo v. ITT Industrial Credit Co. 358 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The Minnesota Supreme Court recently set forth the criteria for the recognition of third party beneficiary rights in Cretex Companies, Inc. v. Construction Leaders, Inc.
Julian Johnson Construction Corp. v. Parranto 352 N.W.2d 808 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Julian Johnson Construction Corp. v. Parranto 352 N.W.2d 808 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Defendants must show that “the contract express[es] some intent by the parties to benefit the third party through contractual performance.” Cretex Companies v. Construction Leaders, Inc., Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 302 (1979).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by