Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., 749 N.W.2d 367.

116 citing documents.

Jonathan David Fritz, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.
Regina Gower, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (quotation omitted).
In re the Estate of: Joanne Mary Ecklund, Decedent Minn. 2025
In re the Estate of: Joanne Mary Ecklund, Decedent Minn. 2025
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.
Karen Marie Firman, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“[M]ere speculation, without some concrete evidence, is not enough to avoid summary judgment.” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Minor Doe 601, a minor, by and through his mother and natural guardian, Mother Doe 601, Appellants, vs. … Minn. 2025
Minor Doe 601, a minor, by and through his mother and natural guardian, Mother Doe 601, Appellants, vs. … Minn. 2025
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.
Michelin Properties LLC, Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“[M]ere speculation, without some concrete evidence, is not enough to avoid summary judgment.” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Provision Media, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, e.g., Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (“Whether proximate cause exists in a particular case is a question of fact for the jury to decide.”); (“Where reasonable minds can differ on the issue of causation, the jury should resolve the issue, and it would be error to grant summary
L and T Tree Services, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company v. Daniel J. Andersen, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
L and T Tree Services, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company v. Daniel J. Andersen, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“[M]ere speculation, without some concrete evidence, is not enough to avoid summary judgment.” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Justin Bolton, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“[M]ere speculation, without some concrete evidence, is not enough to avoid summary judgment.” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc ., (quotation omitted) .
Christopher J. Wendell and Nancy A. Wendell, Relators v. Commissioner of Revenue 7 N.W.3d 405 Minn. 2024
Christopher J. Wendell and Nancy A. Wendell, Relators v. Commissioner of Revenue 7 N.W.3d 405 Minn. 2024
“Summary judgment is ‘inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.’ ” See Henson v. Uptown Drink, LLC, (quoting Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., ).
Distinctive Design Build, LLC v. Thomas Nelson, Installed Building Solutions II, LLC, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Distinctive Design Build, LLC v. Thomas Nelson, Installed Building Solutions II, LLC, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
the result is a legal conclusion that we review de novo.” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.
Joyce Walsh, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(quoting Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., ).
Pedro Alonzo, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[S]ummary judgment is a blunt instrument, and is inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (quotations and citations omitted).
Anthony Kelley, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
An individual’s negligence is the proximate cause of an injury when it is “a material element or a substantial factor in the happening of that result.” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Minn. 2022
In Staub, we relied on a prior decision in Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., and held that a plaintiff claiming negligence need not establish that her theory of causation preponderates over alternative theories when alternative theories of liability are consistent with the plaintiff’s theory (i.e., when each theory of causation could be one of the substantial factors causing
Arch Insurance Company, as subrogee of Centre Rental, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“[S]ummary judgment is a blunt instrument and is inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from t he evidence presented.” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (quotations omitted).
Robert Sharot, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“[S]ummary judgment is a blunt instrument and is inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. , (quotations omitted).
Court of Appeals Hudson, J. Dissenting as to Part I, Anderson, J., David Smits, as Trustee for the … Minn. 2022
We do not weigh conflicting evidence; summary judgment “is inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Under the Rainbow Early Education Center, Minn. 2022
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.
Damon Doss, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(explaining that agency decisi ons “enjoy a presumption of correctness and warrant deference” by appellate courts (quotation omitted)), with Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (stating that appellate courts review grants of summary judgment de novo to determine wh ether there are genuine issues of material fact).
William Jepsen, as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Eric Parker Dean, Minn. 2021
A negligent act is the proximate cause of an injury when the act was “a substantial fa ctor in the happening of that result.” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. , (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) .
Minn. 2021
See Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.
North Loop Downtown, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., d 367, 371 (Minn. 2008) (cautioning courts against relying on “mere speculation” in summary-judgment context).
Peter Stalland, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Appellants offer no more than speculation to support their claim of an impermissible conflict, and “mere speculation is not enough to survive a summary judgment motion.” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. , (q uotation omitted).
Assata Kenneh, Minn. 2020
“ ‘[S]ummary judgment is a blunt instrument’ that is ‘inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.’ ” 15 Montemayor, d at 628 (quoting Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., d 367, 371 (Minn. 2008)).
Vilnis Neilands, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. , ( quotations omitted).
Michelle L. MacDonald, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.
Michelle Friesen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Summary judgment is “inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Samuel Zean, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., d 367, 371 (Minn. 2008).
Gust G. Johanson, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
4 D E C I S I O N “On appeal, [appellate courts] review a grant of summary judgment to determine (1) if there are genuine issues of material fact and (2) if the district court erred in its application of the law.” See Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl , Inc. , ( quotation omitted ).
William Jepsen, as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Eric Parker Dean, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
22 in the happening of that result.” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.
Ann M. Firkus, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., d 367, 371 (Mi nn.
Mark Kedrowski, Minn. 2019
See Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. , (explaining that Minnesota recognizes substantial -factor causation rather than but -for causation).
Nicollet Plaza, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“On appeal, we review a grant of summary judgment to determine (1) if there are genuine issues of material fact and (2) if the district court erred in its application of the law.” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Warren v. Dinter 926 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2019
Warren v. Dinter 926 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2019
" Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , , 628 (Minn. 2017) (quoting Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. , , 371 (Minn. 2008) ).
A18-0391 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“On appeal, we review a grant of summary judgment ‘to determine (1) if there are genuine issues of material fact and (2) if the district court erred in its application of the law.’” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (quoting K.R.
Henson v. Uptown Drink, LLC 922 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2019
Henson v. Uptown Drink, LLC 922 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2019
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. , , 371 (Minn. 2008) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Fenrich v. Blake Sch. 920 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2018
Fenrich v. Blake Sch. 920 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2018
" Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , , 628 (Minn. 2017) (quoting Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. , , 371 (Minn. 2008) ); see also Senogles v. Carlson , , 42 (Minn. 2017).
John Doe 121, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (“Mere speculation, without some concrete evidence, is not enough to avoid summary judgment.” (Alteratio ns omitted)).
Mark Kedrowski, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
3 Kedrowski cites a few cases in which an 2 See Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. , Schulz v. Feigal, 273 Minn. 470, 476, ; see also Sappington v. Skyjack, Inc., 512 F.3d 440, 446 (8th Cir. 2008).
Lana Schulz, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Proximate cause is ordinarily “a question of fact for the jury to decide.” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.
Buskey v. Am. Legion Post 910 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2018