Cited by

(stating that summary judgment is “appropriate as a matter of law when the record is devoid of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim”).6 6 Respondents argue that any alleged agreement reached between the parties on May 31 is void because it violates the statute of frauds.

Summary judgment is “appropriate as a matter of law when the record is devoid of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.”

A defendant’s motion for summary judgment is “appropriate as a matter of law when the record is devoid of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.”

“A material fact is one that will affect the outcome of the case.”

“But if taking the record as a whole, a rational trier of fact could not find for the nonmoving party, summary judgment is appropriate.”

“Summary judgment is appropriate as a matter of law when the record is devoid of proof of an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.”

“We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.”

Cargill Inc. v. Jorgenson

D E C I S I O N “A motion for summary judgment must be granted when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that either party is entitled to judgment 5 as a matter of law.” (citation omitted).

The existence of a contract is a question of fact, Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp. , but summary judgment is appropriate if “a rational trier of fact could not find for the nonmoving party” based on the record as a whole

There is a “presumption in favor of granting continuances to allow sufficient time for discovery.” Cargill Inc. v. Jorgenson Farms , .

Harmon v. Comm’r of Revenue, (stating that Commissioner of Revenue’s assessment of tax liability “enjoys a presumption of validity,” supporting the tax court’s granting of summary judgment); -34 (Minn. App. 2006) (stating that, based upon the record, summary judgment motion was supported by sworn affidavits of the only two people with knowledge of the alleged contract, and nonmoving party submitted no evidence to refute either that no contract was formed or the credibility of one affiant).

P. 56.04.5 There is a “presumption in favor of granting continuances to allow sufficient time for discovery.”

Cf. Cargill Inc. v. Jorgenson Farms , (concluding that contract required acceptance in a certain form because it stated : “Please sign and date the original and attached copy of this contract.

very prior to deciding a summary-judgment motion, “the [district] court considers first, whether the [party seeking a continuance] has been diligent in obtaining or seeking discovery and, second, whether [that same] party seeks further discovery with the good faith belief that material facts will be uncovered, or is merely engaging in a fishing expedition.” (quotation omitted).

nuance to allow discovery prior to a determination of a summary-judgment motion, “the court considers first, whether the moving party has been diligent in obtaining or seeking discovery and, second, whether the moving party seeks further discovery with the good faith belief that material facts will be uncovered, or is merely engaging in a fishing expedition.” (quotation omitted).

And although a finding of bad faith is not required in order to award sanctions, the district court found that the Petersons acted in bad faith.

*41 “The party opposing summary judgment may not rely on unverified and conclusory allegations, or postulated evidence that might be developed at trial, or metaphysical doubt about the facts to establish a genuine issue of material fact.” (quotation omitted).

(holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying *106 continuance when appellant had ten months to complete discovery); -32 (Minn.App.2006) (holding that a continuance is not warranted when a party had approximately seven months to conduct discovery).