Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Whisler v. Findeisen, 160 N.W.2d 153.

33 citing documents.

Linda A. Trampusch v. Truck Insurance Exchange Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Linda A. Trampusch v. Truck Insurance Exchange Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A district court errs by granting a motion for summary judgment if there are doubts about genuine issues of material fact, even if the district court believes that the nonmoving party would be unlikely to prevail at trial
Great North Capital Consultants, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
It is improper to grant a motion for summary judgment if there are doubts about disputed issues of material fact, even if the district court believes that the nonmoving party would be unlikely to prevail at trial
Commerce Bank v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Company 853 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Commerce Bank v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Company 853 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
While there is no objection to a court’s making findings of fact if it wishes to do so, and such findings may well be helpful in making clear the basis of the trial court’s decision, they are not entitled to the respect which an appellate court is required to give findings made pursuant to Rule 52.01.” Whisler v. Findeisen, 280 Minn. 454, 455 n.1, n.1 (1968).
Gresser v. Hotzler 604 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Gresser v. Hotzler 604 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Whisler v. Findeisen, 280 Minn. 454, 455 , , 154 n. 1 (1968).
Strauss v. Thorne 490 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Strauss v. Thorne 490 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
No. 114, (quoting Whisler v. Findeisen, 280 Minn. 454, 456 , ).
Benson v. NORTHERN GOPHER ENTERPRISES 446 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Benson v. NORTHERN GOPHER ENTERPRISES 446 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Evidence is sufficient to compel a trial where a claim is not shown to be "sham, frivolous, or so insubstantial that it would be obviously futile to try.” Whisler v. Findeisen, 280 Minn. 454, 456
Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. Wochnick 397 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. Wochnick 397 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Grant Co., 300 Minn. 223, 238 , (citing Whisler v. Findeisen, 280 Minn. 454 , ).
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
Even if the court believes it to be unlikely that the non-moving party will prevail at trial, summary judgment must be denied with respect to issues which are not shown to be “sham, frivolous, or so insubstantial that it would obviously be futile to try them.” Whisler v. Findeisen, 280 Minn. 454, 456
Larson v. INDEPENDENT SCH. DIST. NO. 314, BRAHAM 252 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 1977
Larson v. INDEPENDENT SCH. DIST. NO. 314, BRAHAM 252 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 1977
Whisler v. Findeisen, 280 Minn. 454 , Dempsey v. Jaroscak, 290 Minn. 405
Vang v. Mount 220 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1974
Vang v. Mount 220 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1974
See, Donnay v. Boulware, supra; Whisler v. Findeisen, 280 Minn. 454
Rathbun v. WT Grant Company 219 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1974
Rathbun v. WT Grant Company 219 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1974
Whisler v. Findeisen, 280 Minn. 454
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.
New Amsterdam Casualty Company v. Lundquist 198 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 1972
New Amsterdam Casualty Company v. Lundquist 198 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 1972
Whisler v. Findeisen, 280 Minn. 454
Lowry Hill Properties, Inc. v. Ashbach Construction Co. 194 N.W.2d 767 Minn. 1971
Lowry Hill Properties, Inc. v. Ashbach Construction Co. 194 N.W.2d 767 Minn. 1971
In Whisler v. Findeisen, 280 Minn. 454, 456 , this court said that, in cases where there is a motion for summary judgment, even if— “* * * it is unlikely that defendant will prevail upon trial, that fact is not a sufficient basis for refusing defendant his day in court with respect to issues which are not shown to be sham, *44
Dempsey v. Jaroscak 188 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1971
Dempsey v. Jaroscak 188 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1971
In Whisler v. Findeisen, 280 Minn. 454, 456 , 160 N. W. (2d) 153, 155 , this court stated: “Although the state of the record, as we view it, leads one to suspect that it is unlikely defendant will prevail upon trial, that fact is not a sufficient basis for refusing defendant his day in court with respect to issues which are not shown to be sham, frivolous
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
Whisler v. Findeisen, 280 Minn. 454 , 160 N. W. (2d) 153 .
City of Coon Rapids v. Suburban Engineering, Inc. 167 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1969
City of Coon Rapids v. Suburban Engineering, Inc. 167 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1969
In the more recent case of Whisler v. Findeisen, 280 Minn. 454 , 160 N. W. (2d) 153 , we reversed the summary judgment, expressing the view that although on the state of the record it was not likely the defendant would prevail upon trial, that fact was not a sufficient basis for refusing him his day in court with respect to issues which were not shown to be sham, frivolous, or so