Cited by

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

115 citing documents.

Kraushaar v. Austin Medical Clinic P.A. 393 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
A genuine issue of fact “must be established by ‘substantial evidence.’ * * * The standard is not defined, but it has been applied to require evidence sufficient to avoid a directed verdict at trial,” and “refers to legal sufficiency and not quantum of evidence.” Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 351-52
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
It is also true that the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that “[a] genuine issue must be established by ‘substantial evidence’ ” and that although the standard is not defined, “it has been applied to require evidence sufficient to avoid a directed verdict at trial.” Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 351 , citing Taylor v. Rederi A/S Volo, 249 P.Supp.
Juster Steel v. Carlson Companies 366 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Juster Steel v. Carlson Companies 366 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Third, the Minnesota Supreme Court has said that “where the legislature intends the limitation period to be contingent upon the knowledge of the aggrieved party, it has so provided.” Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344
Toombs v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1985
Toombs v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1985
Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344
Satter v. National Farmers Organization 358 N.W.2d 731 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Satter v. National Farmers Organization 358 N.W.2d 731 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344
Lindner v. Lund 352 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Lindner v. Lund 352 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344
Midland National Bank of Minneapolis v. Perranoski 299 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 1980
Midland National Bank of Minneapolis v. Perranoski 299 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 1980
Furthermore, “[f]raud is proved with reference to the specific intelligence and experience of the aggrieved party rather than a reasonable-man standard.” Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 351
Northernaire Productions, Inc. v. County of Crow Wing 244 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 1976
Northernaire Productions, Inc. v. County of Crow Wing 244 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 1976
Murphy v. Country House, Inc. 307 Minn. 344