DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

159 citing documents.

  • Peoples State Bank of Plainview v. Muir 386 N.W.2d 321 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Peoples State Bank of Plainview v. Muir 386 N.W.2d 321 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484-85
  • Louwagie v. Witco Chemical Corp. 378 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Louwagie v. Witco Chemical Corp. 378 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484-85 , (emphasis in original) (footnotes omitted).
  • Huver ex rel. Huver v. Opatz 372 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Huver ex rel. Huver v. Opatz 372 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484
  • Cook v. Connolly 366 N.W.2d 287 Minn. 1985
  • Cook v. Connolly 366 N.W.2d 287 Minn. 1985
    See, e.g., Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 485 , (provides a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination”); D. McFarland & W. Keppel, 3 Minnesota Civil Practice § 1651 at 231 (1979); see generally Piele-meier, Summary Judgment in Minnesota: A Search for Patterns, 7 Wm.
  • Vacura v. Haar's Equipment, Inc. 364 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 1985
  • Vacura v. Haar's Equipment, Inc. 364 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 1985
    Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482
  • Grandnorthern, Inc. v. West Mall Partnership 359 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Grandnorthern, Inc. v. West Mall Partnership 359 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484-85
  • Paske v. County of Dakota 356 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Paske v. County of Dakota 356 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    “[T]he 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.” (quoting Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484 , ).
  • Hamilton v. Independent School District No. 114 355 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Hamilton v. Independent School District No. 114 355 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484
  • Nord v. Herreid 305 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1981
  • Nord v. Herreid 305 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1981
    Civ.P., a summary judgment may be granted to either party if “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.” In construing this rule, we have held that “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.” Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484 , see 2 J. Hetland & O. Adamson, Minnesota Practice 571 (1970).
  • Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Tapemark Co. 273 N.W.2d 630 Minn. 1978
  • Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Tapemark Co. 273 N.W.2d 630 Minn. 1978
    Rule 56.03, Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that summary— “[¡Judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that either party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” In Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484 , this court stated: “A motion for summary judgment may be granted * * * only if, after taking the view of th
  • Burner Service & Combustion Controls Co. v. City of Minneapolis 250 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1977
  • Burner Service & Combustion Controls Co. v. City of Minneapolis 250 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1977
    In Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484 , this court stated the rules governing a motion for summary judgment as follows: “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
  • Rossman v. 740 River Drive 241 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 1976
  • Rossman v. 740 River Drive 241 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 1976
    Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482
  • Vieths v. Thorp Finance Co. 232 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 1975
  • Vieths v. Thorp Finance Co. 232 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 1975
    Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482 , Ahlm v. Rooney, 274 Minn. 259
  • Rathbun v. WT Grant Company 219 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1974
  • Rathbun v. WT Grant Company 219 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1974
    In Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 485 , we said: “The controlling words genuine issue and material fact need no amplification since they best speak for themselves.
  • Schmidt v. Smith 216 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 1974
  • Schmidt v. Smith 216 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 1974
    See, also, Whisler v. Findeisen, 280 Minn. 454 , Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482 , 10A Dunnell, Dig.
  • Hansen v. City of Saint Paul 214 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 1974
  • Hansen v. City of Saint Paul 214 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 1974
    Dempsey v. Jaroscak, 290 Minn. 405 , Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482
  • Dempsey v. Jaroscak 188 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1971
  • Dempsey v. Jaroscak 188 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1971
    Ahlm v. Rooney, 274 Minn. 259 , 148 N. W. (2d) 65 ; Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482 , 70 N. W. (2d) 351 .
  • A & J BUILDERS INC. v. Harms 179 N.W.2d 98 Minn. 1970
  • A & J BUILDERS INC. v. Harms 179 N.W.2d 98 Minn. 1970
    e burden of proof *133 and the nonmoving party has the benefit of having the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to him; and that the motion for summary judgment should be denied if, under the evidence, reasonable men might reach different conclusions (Ahlm v. Rooney, 274 Minn. 259 , 143 N. W. [2d] 65; Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co. 270 Minn. 525 , 134 N. W. [2d] 892; Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482 , 70 N. W. [2d] 351; Anderson v. Twin City Rapid Transit Co. 250 Minn. 167 , 84 N. W.
  • Ahlm v. Rooney 143 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 1966
  • Ahlm v. Rooney 143 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 1966
    In considering the application of the foregoing rules, we recognize that this court must “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.” Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484 , 70 N. W. (2d) 351, 353 .
  • Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co. 134 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1965
  • Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co. 134 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1965
    In considering the application of Rule 56, Rules of Civil Procedure, which relates to summary judgment, 1 this court must, on appeal from such judgment, “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.” Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484 , 70 N. W. (2d) 351, 353 .
  • Thayer v. Silker 126 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 1964
  • Thayer v. Silker 126 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 1964
    1 Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 486 , 70 N. W. (2d) 351, 354 .
  • Schoening v. United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc. 120 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1963
  • Schoening v. United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc. 120 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1963
    In Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 484 , 70 N. W. (2d) 351, 353 , we stated the rules governing a motion for summary judgment as follows : “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 th
  • Bustad v. Bustad 116 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1962
  • Bustad v. Bustad 116 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1962
    Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482 , 70 N. W. (2d) 351 ; Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416 , 65 N. W. (2d) 641 ; Anderson v. Twin City Rapid Transit Co. 250 Minn. 167, 186 , 84 N. W. (2d) 593, 605 .
  • Anderson v. Mikel Drilling Co. 102 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1960
  • Anderson v. Mikel Drilling Co. 102 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1960
    6 Rule 56.03 of Rules of Civil Procedure; Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482 , 70 N. W. (2d) 351 ; McCuller v. Workson, 248 Minn. 44 , 78 N. W. (2d) 340 .
  • Juvland v. Plaisance 96 N.W.2d 537 Minn. 1959
  • Juvland v. Plaisance 96 N.W.2d 537 Minn. 1959
    McCuller v. Workson, 248 Minn. 44 , 78 N. W. (2d) 340 ; Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482 , 70 N. W. (2d) 351 ; Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416 , 65 N. W. (2d) 641 .