Cited by

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

159 citing documents.

Whaley v. Anderson 458 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Surf and Sand, Inc. v. Gardebring 457 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Finally, “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
Whaley v. Anderson 458 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 486
Holman v. CPT CORP. 457 N.W.2d 740 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Holman v. CPT CORP. 457 N.W.2d 740 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
As the court stated in Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482 , : It is essential to bear in mind that the moving party has the burden of proof and that the nonmoving party has the benefit of that view of the evidence which is most favorable to him.
Wexler v. Brothers Entertainment Group, Inc. 457 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Wexler v. Brothers Entertainment Group, Inc. 457 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
The meaning and purpose of a summary judgment motion and a description of an appellate court’s duty in reviewing the trial court’s decision is set forth by the Minnesota Supreme Court in the oft-cited case of 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 mat
Horvath v. Liquid Controls Corp. 455 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Horvath v. Liquid Controls Corp. 455 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
The oft-cited case of Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482 , speaks to the role of the court on appeal in reviewing summary judgment.
Schumacher v. Heig 454 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Schumacher v. Heig 454 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
The meaning and purpose of a summary judgment motion and a description of an appellate court’s duty in reviewing the trial court’s decision is set forth by the Minnesota Supreme Court in the oft-cited case of 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 mat
Carlson v. Lilyerd 449 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Carlson v. Lilyerd 449 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Additionally, “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
Connelly v. Northwest Publications, Inc. 448 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Midtaune v. Burns 434 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Midtaune v. Burns 434 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Summary judgment is an appropriate procedure to “relieve the court system of the burden and expense of unfounded litigation.” (citing Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482 , 70 N.W.
Federal Land Bank of Saint Paul v. Obermoller 429 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Federal Land Bank of Saint Paul v. Obermoller 429 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484 , (footnote omitted; emphasis in original).
Dise v. Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc. 428 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Dise v. Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc. 428 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484 , (footnote omitted; emphasis in original).
Foley v. Allard 427 N.W.2d 647 Minn. 1988
Foley v. Allard 427 N.W.2d 647 Minn. 1988
Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484
Stromberg v. Smith 423 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Stromberg v. Smith 423 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
“[T]he moving party has the burden of proof.” Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. BJL Corp. 411 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. BJL Corp. 411 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484
Tran v. Estate of Ditzler 411 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Tran v. Estate of Ditzler 411 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484
O'Brien Entertainment Agency, Inc. v. Wolfgramm 407 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
O'Brien Entertainment Agency, Inc. v. Wolfgramm 407 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484 , (footnote omitted).
Havemeier v. Karlstad Equipment & Farms 406 N.W.2d 581 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Havemeier v. Karlstad Equipment & Farms 406 N.W.2d 581 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484 , (footnote omitted).
Werdin v. Fielden 406 N.W.2d 89 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Werdin v. Fielden 406 N.W.2d 89 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484 , (footnote omitted; emphasis in original).
Boitz v. Preblich 405 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Boitz v. Preblich 405 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 486
Friberg v. Fagen 404 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Friberg v. Fagen 404 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484 , (footnote omitted; emphasis in original).
McGonagle v. Johnson 399 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
McGonagle v. Johnson 399 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(quoting Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484-85 , ).
Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. Wochnick 397 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Bradford Schools, Inc. v. Maetzold 397 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. Wochnick 397 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484
Bradford Schools, Inc. v. Maetzold 397 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484-85 , (emphasis in original) (footnotes omitted).
Mulvihill v. Finseth 396 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Mulvihill v. Finseth 396 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(citing Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484-85 , ), pet.
Hastings v. United Pacific Insurance Co. 396 N.W.2d 682 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hastings v. United Pacific Insurance Co. 396 N.W.2d 682 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484 , (footnote omitted; emphasis in original).
Kemp v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. 390 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kemp v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. 390 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484-85 , (emphasis in original) (footnotes omitted).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by