Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 240 N.W.2d 507.

115 citing documents.

James Thomas Miller, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
12 A “genuine issue” of material fact for trial “must be established by substantial evidence.” Murphy v. Country House, Inc.
Makenzie Moore, a minor, by and through her Conservator, First Fiduciary Corporation, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Co., (citing Murphy v. Country House, Inc., ).
Bay Side Recycling Company LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Therefore, “[t]he existence of a fiduciary relationship is a question of fact.” (fiduciary duties of trustees); see also, e.g., Murphy v. Country House, Inc. , d 507, 512 (Minn. 1976) (fiduciary duties of direct or shareholders to one another) .
Edwards Lifesciences, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Co., (quotation omitted); see also Murphy v. Country House, Inc. , (stating that because affidavit contained inadmissible hearsay, it could not be considered in deciding summary-judgment motion).
Krenske Construction, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Murphy v. Country House, Inc. , 307 Minn. 344, 349
Paul Allen Bray, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 349, Blackwell v. Eckman
Wade Sotona and Kristine Sotona, as co-trustees for the next-of-kin of Brody Sotona, decedent, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Murphy v. Country House, Inc. , 307 Minn. 344, 349
Penny Kandt v. Minnesota Department of Commerce Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Penny Kandt v. Minnesota Department of Commerce Minn. Ct. App. 2017
801, and inadmissible hearsay must be disregarded on summary judgment, Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 349
Mark Schaefer v. Cargill Kitchen Solutions, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mark Schaefer v. Cargill Kitchen Solutions, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
802; Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 349
Randolph Brooks Federal Credit Union v. Daniel N. Gess Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Randolph Brooks Federal Credit Union v. Daniel N. Gess Minn. Ct. App. 2016
at 70 (quoting Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 351, ).
Linda �RandeeŽ Wines v. Jeff Wines Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Linda �RandeeŽ Wines v. Jeff Wines Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 351, (“[T]he determination of when discovery should reasonably have been made is one of fact.”).
Dirk Fisher v. State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Dirk Fisher v. State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bolduc Co., (quotations omitted), which “refers to legal sufficiency and not quantum of evidence,” Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 352
Franklin C. Olson v. Rustic Bar, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Franklin C. Olson v. Rustic Bar, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Co., (citing Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 349, ).
Nicole Curtis v. Jason Jenny Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Nicole Curtis v. Jason Jenny Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 349, 5 (1976).
David Herzog v. Cottingham & Butler Insurance Services, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
David Herzog v. Cottingham & Butler Insurance Services, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Such special circumstances include a “[d]isparity of business experience and invited confidence,” Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 352, a long-standing insurance relationship, Louwagie, d at 571; and when “the insured asks the agent to examine the insured’s exposure and advise the insured on the potential exposure,” Scottsdale Ins.
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co. 825 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2013
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co. 825 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2013
A genuine issue of material fact “ ‘must be established by substantial evidence.’ ” DLH, -70 (Minn.1997) (quoting Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 351 , ).
Bearder v. State 788 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Bearder v. State 788 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
No genuine issue of material fact exists when “the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” DLH, (quotation omitted); see Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 351 , (stating genuine issue must be established by “substantial evidence” or evidence sufficient to avoid a directed verdict at trial).
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord's, Inc. 764 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 2009
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord's, Inc. 764 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 2009
Murphy v. Country House Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 351 , Davis v. Re-Trac Mfg.
Thomas B. Olson & Associates, P.A. v. Leffert, Jay & Polglaze, P.A. 756 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Thomas B. Olson & Associates, P.A. v. Leffert, Jay & Polglaze, P.A. 756 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
See, e.g., Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 350 , (co-owners of incorporated business); St.
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2008
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2008
To survive a summary judgment motion, the nonmoving party must therefore establish that there is a genuine issue of material fact through “substantial evidence.” DLH, d at 70 (stating that “‘substantial evidence’ refers to ‘legal sufficiency and not quantum of evidence’” (quoting Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 351 , )).
Hempel v. Creek House Trust 743 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Hempel v. Creek House Trust 743 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In addition, Minnesota courts have declined to read a discovery requirement into a statutory limitations period because “where the legislature intends the limitation period to be contingent upon the knowledge of the aggrieved party, it has so provided.” Juster Steel, d at 618 (quoting Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 348 , ).
Fin Ag, Inc. v. Hufnagle, Inc. 700 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Fin Ag, Inc. v. Hufnagle, Inc. 700 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
A genuine issue of fact may only be established by “substantial evidence.” Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 351 , (quotation omitted).
Broehm v. Mayo Clinic Rochester 690 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2005
Anderson v. State, Department of Natural Resources 674 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Anderson v. STATE, DEPT. OF NAT. RESOURCES 674 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Anderson v. STATE, DEPT. OF NAT. RESOURCES 674 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
at 69-70 (quoting Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 351 , ).
Anderson v. State, Department of Natural Resources 674 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
at 69-70 (quoting Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 351 , ).
Robins v. Conseco Finance Loan Company 656 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Robins v. Conseco Finance Loan Company 656 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
at 69-70 (quoting Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 351 , ).
Stiele Ex Rel. Gladieux v. City of Crystal 646 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Stiele Ex Rel. Gladieux v. City of Crystal 646 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
at 69-70 (quoting Murphy v. *254 Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 351 , ).
L.M. Ex Rel. S. v. Karlson 646 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
L.M. Ex Rel. S. v. Karlson 646 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
at 69-70 (quoting Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 351 , ).
Bebo v. Delander 632 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Bebo v. Delander 632 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
A genuine issue of material fact “must be established by ‘substantial evidence.’ ” Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 351 , (citations omitted).