Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1961–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lehman v. Stoutgreen2 sentences1989The parol evidence rule is “closely allied” to the doctrine of integration, and “prohibits consideration of evidence of any prior or contemporaneous oral agreement when that evidence contradicts or varies the terms of the written agreement.” United Artists Communications, Inc. v. Corporate Property Investors, 410 N.W.2d 39, 41 (Minn.Ct.App.1987) (citing Lehman v. Stout, 261 Minn. 384, 389 , 112 N.W.2d 640, 644 (1961)). 1989The parol evidence rule is “closely allied” to the doctrine of integration, and “prohibits consideration of evidence of any prior or contemporaneous oral agreement when that evidence contradicts or varies the terms of the written agreement.” United Artists Communications, Inc. v. Corporate Property Investors, 410 N.W.2d 39, 41 (Minn.Ct.App.1987) (citing Lehman v. Stout, 261 Minn. 384, 389 , 112 N.W.2d 640, 644 (1961)). | 3 | 4 |
Beach v. Andersongreen2 sentences2015JAB relies on Beach for the proposition that “[a] court will not blindly apply technicalities if they lead to a conclusion repugnant to common sense.” Id. at 714 . 2015Thus, because the agreement does not express consideration and does include an integration clause stating that it “contain[s] the entire understanding between *257 and among the parties,” it cannot be enforced, and, as the district court concluded, JAB’s action for breach cannot be maintained. 2 One reason for the statute-of-frauds requirement that consideration be in writing is to “guard[] against leaving the proof of a contract which is to run beyond a year dependent on the memory and truthfulness of witnesses and the parties.” Beach v. Anderson, 417 N.W.2d 709, 713 (Minn.App.1988) (quotatio | 1 | 1 |
United Artists Communications, Inc. v. Corporate Property Investorsgreen1 sentence1989The parol evidence rule is “closely allied” to the doctrine of integration, and “prohibits consideration of evidence of any prior or contemporaneous oral agreement when that evidence contradicts or varies the terms of the written agreement.” United Artists Communications, Inc. v. Corporate Property Investors, 410 N.W.2d 39, 41 (Minn.Ct.App.1987) (citing Lehman v. Stout, 261 Minn. 384, 389 , 112 N.W.2d 640, 644 (1961)). | 1 | 1 |
Material Movers, Inc. v. Hillgreen1 sentence1987Material Movers, Inc. v. Hill, 316 N.W.2d 13, 17 (Minn.1982); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 215 (1981). *42 The trial court found that the August 1983 written modification to the lease was incorporated into the original lease. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Alpha Real Estate Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of Minnesota
green
1 sentence2011Here, as in Alpha Real Estate, an integration clause establishes that Maday and respondents intended the easement agreement to constitute “the entire Agreement between the parties.” See id. (emphasis added). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Wiegand v. Walser Automotive Groups, Inc.
green
1 sentence2010Id. at 812 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Risdall v. Brown-Wilbert, Inc.
green
1 sentence2009After analyzing the history of the federal rule and the language of the Minnesota statute governing integration, the supreme court concluded that under Minnesota law, “a securities offer need not result in a sale in order to be integrated.” Risdall II, 753 N.W.2d at 734 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Risdall v. Brown-Wilbert, Inc.
green
1 sentence2008We are unpersuaded by the conclusion of the court of appeals that “[s]uch a deliberate change in the language of the SEC’s integration test cannot be dismissed as having ‘no significance.’ ” Risdall, 733 N.W.2d at 833 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
In Re the Cities of Annandale & Maple Lake NPDES/SDS Permit Issuance for the Discharge of Treated Wastewater
green
1 sentence2008When an agency’s regulation is ambiguous, “we will give deference to the agency’s interpretation and will generally uphold that interpretation if it is reasonable.” Annandale Maple Lake, 731 N.W.2d at 515 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Steward v. Nutrena Feed Mills, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences1961An integration is the writing or writings so adopted.” Integration is closely allied to the parol evidence rule and that relationship is described in Restatement, Contracts, § 237, as follows: “* * * the integration of an agreement makes inoperative to add to or to vary the agreement * * * all prior oral or written agreements relating thereto.” Ordinarily, but not always, the rule is applied to a writing which simply embodies the final terms of an agreement after the parties have completed informal oral negotiations. “* * * The purpose of confirming oral agreements by writing is to avoid misun 1961An integration is the writing or writings so adopted.” Integration is closely allied to the parol evidence rule and that relationship is described in Restatement, Contracts, § 237, as follows: “* * * the integration of an agreement makes inoperative to add to or to vary the agreement * * * all prior oral or written agreements relating thereto.” Ordinarily, but not always, the rule is applied to a writing which simply embodies the final terms of an agreement after the parties have completed informal oral negotiations. “* * * The purpose of confirming oral agreements by writing is to avoid misun | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Haglin v. Ashley
neutral
2 sentences1961An integration is the writing or writings so adopted.” Integration is closely allied to the parol evidence rule and that relationship is described in Restatement, Contracts, § 237, as follows: “* * * the integration of an agreement makes inoperative to add to or to vary the agreement * * * all prior oral or written agreements relating thereto.” Ordinarily, but not always, the rule is applied to a writing which simply embodies the final terms of an agreement after the parties have completed informal oral negotiations. “* * * The purpose of confirming oral agreements by writing is to avoid misun 1961An integration is the writing or writings so adopted.” Integration is closely allied to the parol evidence rule and that relationship is described in Restatement, Contracts, § 237, as follows: “* * * the integration of an agreement makes inoperative to add to or to vary the agreement * * * all prior oral or written agreements relating thereto.” Ordinarily, but not always, the rule is applied to a writing which simply embodies the final terms of an agreement after the parties have completed informal oral negotiations. “* * * The purpose of confirming oral agreements by writing is to avoid misun | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.