Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sauter Ex Rel. Benson v. Sauter, 70 N.W.2d 351.

159 citing documents.

In Re: Henry Hickman, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Progressive Insurance, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“[S]ummary judgment may be entered” on a question of fact, however, “where the material facts are undisputed and as a matter of law compel only one conclusion.”
Jenny Pachicano, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
And “all factual inferences must be drawn against the movant for summary judgment.”
Capital One Bank (USA), NA, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(“[S]ummary judgment is proper where there is no issue to be tried.”).
Paul Stepnes, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
On a motion for summary judgment, “the moving party has the burden of proof and [] the nonmoving party has the benefit of that view of the evidence which is most favorable to him.”
Aegis Insurance Services, LTD., and other interested insurers as subrogees of Northern States Power Co. and Southern Minnesota … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Buskey v. Am. Legion Post 910 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2018
Buskey v. Am. Legion Post 910 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2018
v. Danks , , 746 (Minn. 2010) (noting that "[o]n appeal [from summary judgment], we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted" (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Sauter v. Sauter , 244 Minn. 482 , , 353 (1955) ("[A]ll factual inferences *20 must be drawn against the movant for summary judgment ....").
Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
Similarly, “all factual inferences must be drawn against the movant for summary judgment.” Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 895 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 895 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
"[A]ll factual inferences must be drawn against the movant for summary judgment.” Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 485
In Re the Rate Appeal of Benedictine Health Center 728 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2007
In Re the Rate Appeal of Benedictine Health Center 728 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2007
See Minn. R. 1400 .5500(K) (2005) (authorizing summary disposition "where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact"); Minn. R. 1400 .6600 (2005) (stating that in the absence of contrary administrative rules, the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure apply to *501 the extent that they “promote a fair and expeditious proceeding”); Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484 , ("A motion for a summary judgment may be granted pursuant to Rule 56.03 of Rules [of Civil Procedure] only if, after taking
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Marvin 707 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Marvin 707 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484
Olson v. Lyrek 582 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Olson v. Lyrek 582 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(citing Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484-85 , ).
Petition of Willmus 568 N.W.2d 722 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Petition of Willmus 568 N.W.2d 722 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
We must also resolve all inferences from those facts in favor of the nonmoving party, O’ (citing Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482 /484-85, ).
O'MALLEY v. Ulland Bros. 549 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1996
O'MALLEY v. Ulland Bros. 549 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1996
However, O’Malley argues that, while there is no direct factual dispute, there is a dispute sufficient to survive summary judgment because different inferences could be drawn from the facts, citing Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484-85
Donaldson v. Young Women's Christian Ass'n of Duluth 526 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Donaldson v. Young Women's Christian Ass'n of Duluth 526 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484-85
Errico v. Southland Corp. 509 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Errico v. Southland Corp. 509 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484-85
Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. O'Connor & Hannan 494 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1992
Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. O'Connor & Hannan 494 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1992
Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484
Corazalla v. Quie 473 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Corazalla v. Quie 473 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484-85
Sayers Ex Rel. Sayers v. Beltrami County 472 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Sayers Ex Rel. Sayers v. Beltrami County 472 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484-85
Gow v. Turnquist 474 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Gow v. Turnquist 474 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484-85 , (footnotes omitted) (emphasis in original).
Noland v. Soo Line Railroad 474 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Noland v. Soo Line Railroad 474 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
This court’s duty in reviewing a summary judgment motion is set forth in Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482 , : A motion for a summary judgment may be granted pursuant to Rule 56.03 only if, after taking the view of the evidence most favorable to the nonmoving party, the movant has clearly sustained his burden of showing that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that he is entitled to ju
Transamerica Insurance Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. 465 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Transamerica Insurance Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. 465 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Further, “the nonmoving party has the benefit of that view of the evidence which is most favorable to him.” (quoting Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484-85 , ).
Abo El Ela v. State 468 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Abo El Ela v. State 468 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 486
Markgraf v. Douglas Corp. 468 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Markgraf v. Douglas Corp. 468 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Finally, *82 “the nonmoving party has the benefit of that view of the evidence which is most favorable to him.” Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484-85
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District v. Orfei & Sons, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District v. Orfei & Sons, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(citing Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484-85 , ).
Whaley v. Anderson 461 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 1990
Bunkowske v. Briard 461 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Bunkowske v. Briard 461 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
& Combustion Controls Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 312 Minn. 104, 107 , (quoting Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484 , ) (emphasis added).
Otto v. City of St. Paul 460 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Otto v. City of St. Paul 460 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 486 , (citations omitted).
Surf and Sand, Inc. v. Gardebring 457 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1990