Cited by

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

116 citing documents.

Buskey v. Am. Legion Post 910 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2018
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. , , 371 (Minn. 2008) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Minn. 2018
“In the context of general tort liability, such as negligence actions, we long ago defined a proximate cause of a given result as ‘a material element or a substantial factor in the happening of that result.’ ” Osborne v. Twin Bowl, Inc., (quoting Peterson v. Fulton, 256 N.W.
Dering Pierson Group, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See, e.g., Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (noting that “summary judgment is a blunt instrument” that is “inappropriate when reasonable persons mi ght draw different conclusions from the evidence pr esented” (citation omitted)); Lewis, d at 889 (noting in defamation action that “the truth or falsity of a statement is inherently w
Regents of the University of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“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 th e law.’” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (quoting K.R.
Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
Summary judgment is a “blunt instrument” that should not be granted “when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (citation omitted).
Blum v. Thompson 901 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Blum v. Thompson 901 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.
Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc. 898 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc. 898 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
“[S]ummary judgment is a blunt instrument” that is “inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Leeco, Inc. v. Cornerstone Bank 898 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Leeco, Inc. v. Cornerstone Bank 898 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.
Randall v. Paul 897 N.W.2d 842 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Randall v. Paul 897 N.W.2d 842 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Summary judgment “is inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (quotation omitted).
James F. Edgar, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[W]e 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).
Richard S. Little, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.
Bethany Good, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In our review, we must “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.
In re Estate of: Alice I. Engman, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re Estate of: Alice I. Engman, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In short, Dean’s undue-influence argument is based solely on speculation, but “mere speculation, without some concrete evidence, is not enough to avoid summary judgment.” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (quotation omitted).
James Ariola, as next of kin of, and trustee for, the Estate of Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son, … 889 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
James Ariola, as next of kin of, and trustee for, the Estate of Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son, … 889 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Julie Childs v. Fairview Health Services Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Julie Childs v. Fairview Health Services Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[M]ere speculation, without some concrete evidence, is not enough to avoid summary judgment.” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.
Mark Schaefer v. Cargill Kitchen Solutions, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mark Schaefer v. Cargill Kitchen Solutions, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Schaefer offered mere speculation, which “without some concrete evidence, is not enough to avoid summary judgment.” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.
Excel Manufacturing, Inc. v. Todd Wondrow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Excel Manufacturing, Inc. v. Todd Wondrow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[M]ere speculation, without some concrete evidence, is not enough to avoid summary judgment.” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Lois St. Aubin v. Caseys Retail Company d/b/a Caseys General Store Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lois St. Aubin v. Caseys Retail Company d/b/a Caseys General Store Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We recognize that “summary 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).
Kenneth A. Roseland v. Joseph A. Wentzell, Attorney at Law, Richard L. Kusick, and Roseland Acres, LLC, third … 864 N.W.2d 356 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kenneth A. Roseland v. Joseph A. Wentzell, Attorney at Law, Richard L. Kusick, and Roseland Acres, LLC, third … 864 N.W.2d 356 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
That party must “establish that there is a genuine issue of material fact through substantial evidence.” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Mavco, Inc. d/b/a Maverick Construction Company v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mavco, Inc. d/b/a Maverick Construction Company v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (quotations omitted).
James Ariola as next of kin and trustee for Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son v. The City of … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
James Ariola as next of kin and trustee for Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son v. The City of … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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
City of Paynesville v. Greg Rutten Minn. Ct. App. 2014
City of Paynesville v. Greg Rutten Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Nancy Salscheider v. Allina Health System d/b/a Allina Hospitals & Clinics Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Nancy Salscheider v. Allina Health System d/b/a Allina Hospitals & Clinics Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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).
Butler v. JLA Industrial Equipment, Inc. 845 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Butler v. JLA Industrial Equipment, Inc. 845 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.
Amica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wartman 841 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Amica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wartman 841 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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).
Langston v. Wilson McShane Corp. 828 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2013
Langston v. Wilson McShane Corp. 828 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2013
the result is a legal conclusion that we review de novo.” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.
Builders Ass'n v. City of St. Paul 819 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Builders Ass'n v. City of St. Paul 819 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.
Coursolle v. EMC Insurance Group, Inc. 794 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Coursolle v. EMC Insurance Group, Inc. 794 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.
Sayer v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 790 N.W.2d 151 Minn. 2010

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by