Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rosvall v. Provost, 155 N.W.2d 900.

47 citing documents.

Croix Holdings, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A party cannot overcome a motion for summary judgment with “unverified and conclusory 23 allegations.” ().
State Farm Fire & Casualty v. Aquila Inc. 718 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 2006
State Farm Fire & Casualty v. Aquila Inc. 718 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 2006
(quoting Rosvall v. Provost, 279 Minn. 119, 124 , ).
Benigni v. County of St. Louis 585 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1998
Benigni v. County of St. Louis 585 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1998
Rosvall v. Provost, 279 Minn. 119, 123
Lubbers v. Anderson 539 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1995
Lubbers v. Anderson 539 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1995
“Upon a motion for summary judgment * * * the adverse party cannot preserve his right to a trial on the merits merely by referring to unverified and conclusionary allegations in his pleading or by postulating evidence which might be developed at trial * * Rosvall v. Provost, 279 Minn. 119, 124
Mjolsness v. Riley 524 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Mjolsness v. Riley 524 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See Rosvall v. Provost, 279 Minn. 119, 123 , (one who merely lays facts before judicial official is not liable for resulting detention even though detention may have been erroneous); Gifford v. Wiggins, 50 Minn. 401, 404 , 52 N.W.
Schmidt v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, Inc. 460 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Schmidt v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, Inc. 460 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Rosvall v. Provost, 279 Minn. 119, 124
Bush v. City of Lakefield 399 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bush v. City of Lakefield 399 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Rosvall v. Provost, 279 Minn. 119, 124
Powell v. City of Clearwater 389 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Powell v. City of Clearwater 389 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Rosvall v. Provost, 279 Minn. 119, 124 , (citation omitted); see 2A D. Herr & R. Haydock, Minnesota Practice § 56.16 (1985).
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
Id.; see Rosvall v. Provost, 279 Minn. 119, 124
Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. City of Lakeville 313 N.W.2d 196 Minn. 1981
Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. City of Lakeville 313 N.W.2d 196 Minn. 1981
This Court has held a “party cannot preserve his right to a trial on the merits merely by referring to unverified and conclusory allegations in his pleading * * *.” Rosvall v. Provost, 279 Minn. 119, 124
Campbell v. St. Mary's Hospital 252 N.W.2d 581 Minn. 1977
Campbell v. St. Mary's Hospital 252 N.W.2d 581 Minn. 1977
To preserve his right to trial, an adverse party to a motion for summary judgment “may not rest upon the mere averments or denials of his pleading but must present specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Rule 56.05, Rules of Civil Procedure; Fownes v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. 302 Minn. 471 , Rosvall v. Provost, 279 Minn. 119
Murphy v. Country House, Inc. 240 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1976
Murphy v. Country House, Inc. 240 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1976
See, Rosvall v. Provost, 279 Minn. 119, 124
O'NEIL v. Kelly 239 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1976
O'NEIL v. Kelly 239 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1976
Rosvall v. Provost, 279 Minn. 119 , and Ahlm v. Rooney, 274 Minn. 259
In Re Estate of Bush 224 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1974
Lee v. Arrowood 224 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1974
Lee v. Arrowood 224 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1974
Rosvall v. Provost, 279 Minn. 119 , Ahlm v. Rooney, 274 Minn. 259
In Re Estate of Bush 224 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1974
Rosvall v. Provost, 279 Minn. 119 , Ahlm v. Rooney, 274 Minn. 259
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency v. Hatfield 210 N.W.2d 298 Minn. 1973
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency v. Hatfield 210 N.W.2d 298 Minn. 1973
Rosvall v. Provost, 279 Minn. 119 , Borom v. City of St.
Kittler & Hedelson v. Sheehan Properties, Inc. 203 N.W.2d 835 Minn. 1973
Kittler & Hedelson v. Sheehan Properties, Inc. 203 N.W.2d 835 Minn. 1973
See, also, Rosvall v. Provost, 279 Minn. 119 , emphasizing “willfulness.” In its instructions, the trial court reiterated these elements of a claim for abuse of process.
Manpower, Inc. v. Best Temporaries, Inc. 196 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 1972
Manpower, Inc. v. Best Temporaries, Inc. 196 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 1972
What we said in Rosvall v. Provost, 279 Minn. 119, 124 , disposes of the matter: “Upon a motion for summary judgment supported by affidavits setting out specific facts which, if true, would demonstrate the absence of a cause of action, the adverse party cannot preserve his right to a trial on the merits merely by referring to unverified
County of Hennepin v. Mikulay 194 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1972
County of Hennepin v. Mikulay 194 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1972
Rosvall v. Provost, 279 Minn. 119 , Ahlm v. Rooney, 274 Minn. 259 , Borom v. City of St.
Pow-Bel Construction Corporation v. Gondek 192 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1971
Pow-Bel Construction Corporation v. Gondek 192 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1971
Those same elements are reiterated in Behrendt v. Rassmussen, 234 Minn. 97, 103 , Rosvall v. Provost, 279 Minn. 119, 123 , and Wood v. Bangs, 199 Minn. 208
Morgan v. McLaughlin 188 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 1971
Morgan v. McLaughlin 188 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 1971
Paul, 289 Minn. 371 , 184 N. W. (2d) 595 ; Rosvall v. Provost, 279 Minn. 119 , 155 N. W. (2d) 900 ; Ahlm v. Rooney, 274 Minn. 259 , 143 N. W. (2d) 65 .
Callender v. Kalscheuer 184 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 1971
Callender v. Kalscheuer 184 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 1971
Paul, 289 Minn. 371 , 184 N. W. (2d) 595 ; Rosvall v. Provost, 279 Minn. 119 , 155 N. W. (2d) 900 ; Ahlm v. Rooney, 274 Minn. 259 , 143 N. W. (2d) 65 .
Borom v. City of St. Paul 184 N.W.2d 595 Minn. 1971
Borom v. City of St. Paul 184 N.W.2d 595 Minn. 1971
2 Hetland & Adamson, Minnesota Practice, Civil Eules Ann., p. 573; Rosvall v. Provost, 279 Minn. 119 , 155 N. W. (2d) 900 ; Ahlm v. Rooney, 274 Minn. 259 , 143 N. W. (2d) 65 .
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
We said in Rosvall v. Provost, 279 Minn. 119, 124 , 155 N. W. (2d) 900 , 904: “Upon a motion for summary judgment supported by affidavits setting out specific facts which, if true, would demonstrate the absence of a cause of action, the adverse party cannot preserve his right to a trial on the merits merely by referring to unverified and conclusionary allegation