Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Phoenix Publishing Co. v. Riverside Clothing Co., 55 N.W. 912.

29 citing documents.

GGG, Incorporation, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Anchor Bank, N. A. v. Matthew L. Gulbransen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Anchor Bank, N. A. v. Matthew L. Gulbransen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Thomas, Inc., 294 Minn. 5 215, 224, (citing Phoenix Publ’g Co. v. Riverside Clothing Co., 54 Minn. 205, 206, 55 N.W.
Randy Lundgren v. Diane Cash Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Randy Lundgren v. Diane Cash Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Phoenix Publ’g Co., v. Riverside Clothing Co., 54 Minn. 205, 206, 55 N.W.
Alpha Real Estate Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of Minnesota 664 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2003
Alpha Real Estate Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of Minnesota 664 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2003
Thomas, Inc., 294 Minn. 215, 224 , (citing Phoenix Publ’g Co. v. Riverside Clothing Co., 54 Minn. 205, 206 , 55 N.W.
Montgomery v. American Hoist & Derrick Co. 350 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Montgomery v. American Hoist & Derrick Co. 350 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
that the trial court erred in ruling that oral discussions and negotiations conducted prior to the June 5 letter were “precluded from consideration by the parol evidence rule.” Appellant argues that the June 5 letter was never intended to represent the entire contract between the parties and therefore falls within the exception recognized in *408 Phoenix Publishing Co. v. Riverside Clothing Co., 54 Minn. 205 , 55 N.W.
Hield v. Thyberg 347 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1984
Hield v. Thyberg 347 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1984
Material Movers, Phoenix Publishing Co. v. Riverside Clothing Co., 54 Minn. 205, 206 , 55 N.W.
Bussard v. College of Saint Thomas, Inc. 200 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 1972
Bussard v. College of Saint Thomas, Inc. 200 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 1972
That exception to the parol evidence rule was stated by Mr. Justice Mitchell in Phoenix Publishing Co. v. Riverside Clothing Co. 54 Minn. 205, 206 , : “The rule forbidding the use of parol evidence to affect a written instrument does not apply to a case where a part only of the dealings between the parties in respect to a particular subject matter is reduced to writing, except as respects such part.
Jimmerson v. Troy Seed Co. 53 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1952
Jimmerson v. Troy Seed Co. 53 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1952
See, Phoenix Publishing Co. v. Riverside Clothing Co. 54 Minn. 205 , .
Bjornstad v. Northern States Power Co. 263 N.W. 289 Minn. 1935
Bjornstad v. Northern States Power Co. 263 N.W. 289 Minn. 1935
Co. v. Riverside Clothing Co. 54 Minn. 205 , ; Aultman, Miller & Co. v. Clifford, 55 Minn. 159 , , 43 A. S. R. 478; Staples v. Edwards & McCulloch Lbr.
Hoy v. Nichols 212 N.W. 530 Minn. 1927
Hoy v. Nichols 212 N.W. 530 Minn. 1927
Co. v. Riverside C. Co. 54 Minn. 205 , .
Shinners v. Ford 186 N.W. 704 Minn. 1922
Shinners v. Ford 186 N.W. 704 Minn. 1922
Co. v. Riverside Clothing Co. 54 Minn. 205 , ; Minneapolis, St.
Samuel H. Chute Co. v. Latta 142 N.W. 1048 Minn. 1913
Samuel H. Chute Co. v. Latta 142 N.W. 1048 Minn. 1913
Co. v. Riverside Clothing Co. 54 Minn. 205, 206 , .
McLoone v. Brusch 138 N.W. 35 Minn. 1912
McLoone v. Brusch 138 N.W. 35 Minn. 1912
Co. v. Riverside Clothing Co. 54 Minn. 205 , ; Aultman, Miller & Co. v. Clifford, 55 Minn. 159 , ; Potter v. Easton, 82 Minn. 247 , ; Hand v. Ryan Drug Co. 63 Minn. 539 , , a parol modification was permitted.
Rutherford v. Selover 92 N.W. 413 Minn. 1902
Rutherford v. Selover 92 N.W. 413 Minn. 1902
Co. v. Riverside Clothing Co., 54 Minn. 205 , .
Potter v. Easton 84 N.W. 1011 Minn. 1901
Potter v. Easton 84 N.W. 1011 Minn. 1901
Co. v. Riverside Clothing Co., 54 Minn. 205 , ; Aultman, Miller & Co. v. Clifford, 55 Minn. 159 , ; Vaughan v. McCarthy, 63 Minn. 221 , .