Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC, 705 N.W.2d 746.

63 citing documents.

Brett Cournoyer v. Darren Troy Lang, et al., Whitetail Properties Real Estate, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In response, “[t]he nonmoving party must do more than rest on averments or denials of the adverse party ’s pleading.” Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC
Rebecca A. Niebuhr v. Jacob Sieberg, Timothy Sieberg Minn. 2026
Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC
Magnifi Financial Credit Union v. Harriet Lewis, The Patio Park Association, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, (“The nonmoving party must do more than rest on averments or denials of the adverse party’s pleading.”).
Benchmark Investments, LLC v. Jennifer Mark, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In response, the nonmoving party “must do more than rest on averments or denials of the adverse party’s pleading.” Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC
Mark Weber, et al v. Jeffrey P. Brockberg, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
DECISION “We review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine ‘whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.’” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, ).
Petition of Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for an Order Directing Entry of New Certificate of Title After Mortgage … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
DECISION Appellate courts review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine “whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, ).
Rebecca A. Niebuhr v. Jacob Sieberg, Timothy Sieberg, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, 759-60 (Minn. 2005).
Zoila Salguero v. Elvis Perez Hernandez, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Minnesota’s workers’ compensation system is “based on a compromise between employees and employers and involves ‘a mutual renunciation of common law rights and defenses by employers and employees alike.’ ” Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, (quoting Minn. Stat. § 176.001).
Chad Loran Siegel v. Drew Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“We review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine ‘whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.’” Montemayor v. Sebright Pro ds., Inc., (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, ).
Charlie Thoemke v. Christopher Roland Lamke Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The purpose of the coemployee exception is “to allow only a narrow window for coemployee liability” because allowing claims against coemployees for simple 6 negligence “tends to shift tort liability from employer to fellow employee in a manner never intended by the workers’ compensation system.” Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, (quotation omitted).
Ryan Alvar, et al v. Nicollet Residences, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Vikings Football Club, LLC
Chase Rovere, et al v. Clifford Ling, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Chase Rovere, et al v. Clifford Ling, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“We review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine ‘whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.’” Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc., (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, ).
Robert R. Schroeder Construction, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation, vs. W. Gohman Construction Co. d/b/a Artistic Stone … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Robert R. Schroeder Construction, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation, vs. W. Gohman Construction Co. d/b/a Artistic Stone … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
But the nonmoving party “must do more than rest on averments or denials of the adverse party’s pleading.” Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC
Joyce Walsh, et al v. Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc., John Does 1-50 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
An appellate court “review[s] the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine ‘whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.’” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, ); see also Minn. R. Civ.
Cambria Company, LLC v. M&M Creative Laminants, Inc. dba M&M Creative Laminates, Inc. (A22-0723) (A22-0724), Leland P. Schermer … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“We review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine ‘whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.’” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, ).
Jane Doe v. Special School District No. 6, South St. Paul Public Schools, ABC School District, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In doing so, we must not “weigh 7 facts or determine the credibility of affidavits and other evidence.” Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC
Janet C. Dreyer, et al v. Reierson Construction, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“We review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine ‘whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.’” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, ).
Carl Green v. USA Towing & Recovery, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
3 (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, ).
In Re: Henry Hickman v. Paul Schnell, Commissioner of MN Dept. of Corrections, et al., Sgt. D. Franklin, … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, accord Minn. R. Civ.
Ronald G. Davis, Personal Representative of the Estate of Roger F. Davis and Trustee of the Toivo W. … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Appellate courts “review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine ‘whether there are [any] genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.’” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, ).
Eric Aaron v. Zachary Aaron, et al., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A party opposing summary judgment “must do more than rest on averments or denials of the adverse party’s pleading.” Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC
Minn. 2022
In doing so, we do not “weigh facts or determine the credibility of affidavits and other evidence.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prod., Inc., (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, ).
Arch Insurance Company, as subrogee of Centre Rental, Inc. v. Michael Quistorff Minn. Ct. App. 2022
DECISION We review a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment de novo to determine “whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its a pplication of the law.” Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC
Robert Sharot, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Water Gremlin Company Minn. Ct. App. 2022
DECISION We review a grant of summary judgment de novo to determine “whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC
Damon Doss v. St. Paul Area Electrical JATC Registered Apprenticeship Program Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A party is entitled to summary judgment when “there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, see also Minn. R. Civ.
Jenny Pachicano v. Julie Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“We do not weigh facts.” Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC
Debra Lynn Johnson v. SICO America, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, -54 (M inn.
Docks of White Bear Lake, LLC v. Dockside Waterski Company, d/b/a Tally's Dockside, and City of White Bear … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“We review the grant of su mmary judgment de novo to determine ‘whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.’” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC , ).
Paul Boyum v. Federal National Mortgage Association "Fannie Mae", et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
On appeal from a grant of summary judgment, w e apply a de novo standard of review “to determine ‘whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whethe r the district court erred in its application of the law.’” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, ) .
Charles Richard Stone v. Kevin Moser, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Appellate courts “review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine ‘whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.’” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, ).
Phillip Musselman, et al v. Target Corporation, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
D E C I S I O N Minnesota appellate courts “ review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine ‘whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.’” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, ); see Minn. R. Civ.
Samson Longtin v. Jeffrey Scott Pollard, Aaron Michael Voges Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“We review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine ‘whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.’” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc ., (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC , ).
Carnea Roberson v. STI International, Bill’s Gun Shop Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“We review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine ‘whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.’” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC , ).
Mark R. Krampf v. University of Minnesota, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
cannot recover damages and there is no issue of fact left to be decided.” 17 “We review the grant of su mmary judgment de novo to determine ‘whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.’” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC , ).
Assata Kenneh, Minn. 2020
Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC , d 746, 75 3–54 ( Minn. 2005).
Minn. 2020
See Senogles v. Carlson , (citing Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC , ).
Michelle L. MacDonald, et al v. Michael Brodkorb, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC
Keith B. Hagen, et al v. Windemere Township Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“We review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine ‘whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.’” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC , ).
Oluf Johnson, et al v. Consumers Cooperative Association of Litchfield Minn. Ct. App. 2019
’” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC , ).
Ellis Olkon, et al v. City of Medina Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“We review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine ‘ whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.’” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, ).
Ahmed Said v. Davin Branwall Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Appellate courts “do not weigh facts or determine the credibility of affidavits and other evidence.” Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC
Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
We must not “weigh facts.” Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC
Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc. 898 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc. 898 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
2 ANALYSIS We review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine “whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, see also Minn. R. Civ.
Sanchez v. Dahlke Trailer Sales, Inc. 897 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2017
Sanchez v. Dahlke Trailer Sales, Inc. 897 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2017
Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC
Kelly ex rel. Washburn v. Kraemer Construction, Inc. 896 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2017