DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc., 689 N.W.2d 779.

56 citing documents.

  • Doe A.S., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    However, the nonmoving party “may not establish genuine issues of material fact by relying upon unverified and conclusory allegations, or postulated evidence that might be developed at trial, or metaphysical doubt about the facts.” Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc., see also Minn. R. Civ.
  • Julie Massaquoi v. Abe Al-Qudeh Minn. Ct. App. 2026
  • Julie Massaquoi v. Abe Al-Qudeh Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    The nonmoving party “may not establish genuine issues of material fact by relying upon unverified and conclusory allegations, or postulated evidence that might be developed at trial, or metaphysical doubt about the facts.” Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc., d 779, 783 (Minn. 2004).
  • Charlie Thoemke, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    “The party opposing summary judgment may not establish genuine issues of material fact by relying upon unverified and conclusory allegations, or postulated evidence that might be developed at trial, or metaphysical doubt about the facts.” Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc.
  • Roger Sand v. Sand Pine Pheasants Family Recreation, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • Roger Sand v. Sand Pine Pheasants Family Recreation, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    In analogously considering a contractual right of first refusal in the context of an agricultural lease, the Minnesota Supreme Court explained that it has “long recognized the right of parties to freely contract, and will enforce legal rights according to contract terms.” Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc.
  • A Business Solutions Company LLC, d/b/a AFOX Solutions, LLC, a LGBTE Company, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    9 Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc., (“The party opposing summary judgment may not establish genuine issues of material fact by relying upon unverified and conclusory allegations, or postulated evidence that might be developed at trial, or metaphysical doubt about the facts.”).
  • Suzanne Stephens, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    Although Minnesota has no caselaw directly addressing options in a trust without a deadline, in other contexts, Minnesota courts have held that if a “contract provides no deadline for accepting or rejecting the offer of sale, acceptance must be within a reasonable time.” Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc., (emphasis added); see also 80 Am.
  • Jonathan G. Foss, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    See Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc., (holding a party does not “establish genuine issues of material fact by relying upon unverified and conclusory allegations”).
  • Matthew Braith, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc.
  • John P. Norusis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    However, the nonmoving party “may not establish genuine issues of material fact by relying upon unverified and conclusory allegations, or postulated evidence that might be developed at trial, or metaphysical doubt about the facts.” Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc.
  • Darwin Boutain, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    See Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc., -90 (Minn. App. 2003) (citing cases in which sanctions awards were reversed for failure to follow rule-11 procedures), aff’d
  • Cole Clark, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc.
  • Capacity Wireless, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    Still, the party opposing summary judgment “may not establish genuine issues of material fact by relying upon unverified and conclusory allegations, or postulated evidence that might be developed at trial, or metaphysical doubt about the facts.” Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc.
  • BDS Laundry Management Company, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    Minnesota courts “have long recognized th e right of parties to freely contract, and will enforce legal rights according to contract terms.” Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc.
  • Dr. Kimberly Finch, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    A genuine issue of material fact does not arise from “unverified and conclusory allegations” or “metaphysical doubt about the facts.” Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc.
  • Inland Edinburgh Festival, LLC, Minn. 2020
    § 1031 “allows for the equity received from a sale of investment property to be reinvested into ‘like kind’ property of equal or greater value without payment of capital gains tax.” Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc ., n.2 (Minn. 2004).
  • Robert F. Goerdt, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    The lack of a time period during which Robert and Lucille must agree on a purchase price does not render the option unenforceable, as Minnesota law provides that when no deadline is provided to perform under an option, performance must be done within a “reasonable time.” See Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc., (“We acknowledge that upon receiving notice, a lessee may have to clarify or investigate uncertainties and ambiguities of essential terms, but we also conclude that such an inquiry must be don
  • Thondee Pongmalee, et al., Plaintiffs, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    See Dyrdal v. Gold en Nuggets, Inc. , (rejecting substantial-co mpliance argument), aff’d on other grounds
  • McBee v. Team Indus., Inc. 925 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 2019
  • McBee v. Team Indus., Inc. 925 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 2019
    Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc. , , 783 (Minn. 2004).
  • In re Poole 921 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • In re Poole 921 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    P. 60.02 ); Rossberg v. State , , 791 (Minn. 2016) (postconviction relief); Andersen v. State , , 12 (Minn. 2013) (obtaining an evidentiary hearing in criminal matters after waiving the right to testify); Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc., , 783 (Minn. 2004) (summary judgment); In re Rahr Malting Co. , , 576 (Minn. 2001) (whether something is a trade secret); In re Welfare of L.L.P.
  • Morgan-Walg, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    010 and July 8, 2011, Morgan-Walg was paid $5,010,000 and that he “d[id] not se e how those payments were accounted for in Morgan-Walg’s motion for summary judgment.” A party cannot defeat summary judgment “by relying upon unverified and c onclusory allegations, or postulated evidence that might be developed at trial, or metaphysical doubt about the facts.” Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc.
  • J.C. Allen Co., Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    conclusory allegations.” Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc.
  • AgCountry Farm Credit Services, ACA, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    The party opposing summa ry judgment “may not establish genuine issues of material fact by relying upon unverified and conclusory allegations.” Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc.
  • Scott J. Zimmer, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • U. S. Bank National Association, successor by merger to U. S. Bank National Association ND, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    See Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc., (stating that party opposing summary judgment must do more than rely on “unverified and conclusory allegations”).
  • A17-0297 A17-0059 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc., aff ’d
  • City Center Commons, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    “The party opposing summary judgment may not establish genuine issues of material fact by relying upon unverified and conclusory allegations, or postulated evidence that might be developed at trial, or metaphysical doubt about the facts.” Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc.
  • Ann Majerus v. Harvey L. Huyser, Barbara St. John, Tony Montgomery Realty and Auction Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • Ann Majerus v. Harvey L. Huyser, Barbara St. John, Tony Montgomery Realty and Auction Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    “The party opposing summary judgment may not establish genuine issues of material fact by relying upon unverified and conclusory allegations, or postulated evidence that might be developed at trial, or metaphysical doubt about the facts.” Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc.
  • Robert L. Follis, Georgia K. Follis v. State Armory Building Commission Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Robert L. Follis, Georgia K. Follis v. State Armory Building Commission Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    A. Genuine Issue of Material Fact “The party opposing summary judgment may not establish genuine issues of material fact by relying upon unverified and conclusory allegations, or postulated 5 evidence that might be developed at trial, or metaphysical doubt about the facts.” Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc.
  • Wajiha Shirin Shah, Relator v. IMI's MN, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Wajiha Shirin Shah, Relator v. IMI's MN, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    See Drydal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc., d 779, 785 n.4 (Minn. 2004) (describing anticipatory breach).
  • Gail R. Trotta v. Duluth Realty Company, Randy Underthun Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Gail R. Trotta v. Duluth Realty Company, Randy Underthun Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    Johnson, d at 518; see also Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc., (stating that even “substantial compliance” with the procedural requirements of section 549.211 and rule 11 is insufficient), aff’d on other grounds
  • White v. Many Rivers West Ltd. Partnership 797 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • White v. Many Rivers West Ltd. Partnership 797 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc., aff'd
  • NC Properties, LLC v. Lind 797 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • NC Properties, LLC v. Lind 797 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    But the nonmoving party “may not establish genuine issues of material fact by relying upon unverified and conclusory allegations, or postulated evidence that might be developed later at trial, or metaphysical doubt about the facts.” Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc.
  • 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
    See, e.g., Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc., (holding that a right of first refusal “ripens into an option when the owner receives a bona fide third party offer and notifies the holder of the right”); Park-Lake Car Wash, (distinguishing a right-first-refusal agreement from an option contract beca
  • Cargill, Inc. v. Jorgenson Farms 719 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • Cargill, Inc. v. Jorgenson Farms 719 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc.
  • Liabo v. Wayzata Nissan, LLC 707 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • Liabo v. Wayzata Nissan, LLC 707 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    “The party opposing summary judgment may not establish genuine issues of material fact by relying upon unverified and conclusory allegations, or postulated evidence that might be developed at trial, or metaphysical doubt about the facts.” Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc.
  • Dunham v. Roer 708 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • Dunham v. Roer 708 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    “The party opposing summary judgment may not establish genuine issues of material fact by relying upon unverified and conclusory allegations, or postulated evidence that might be developed at trial, or metaphysical doubt about the facts.” Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc.