DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

116 citing documents.

  • Jane Doe 43C v. Diocese of New Ulm 787 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • Jane Doe 43C v. Diocese of New Ulm 787 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.
  • Bearder v. State 788 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • Bearder v. State 788 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    See Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (“mere speculation, without some concrete evidence, is not enough to avoid summary judgment”) (quotation omitted); Nicollet Restoration, Inc. v. City of St.
  • GEIST-MILLER v. Mitchell 783 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • GEIST-MILLER v. Mitchell 783 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    See Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (describing summary judgment as “blunt instrument”).
  • Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc. 781 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc. 781 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.
  • Brua v. MINNESOTA JOINT UNDERWRITING ASS'N 778 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2010
  • Brua v. MINNESOTA JOINT UNDERWRITING ASS'N 778 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2010
    An appellate court “review[s] 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., , *300 371 (Minn.2008) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • Booth v. Gades 771 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • Booth v. Gades 771 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.
  • Oberloh v. Johnson 768 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • Oberloh v. Johnson 768 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    On appeal from summary judgment, this court determines whether the evidence, when “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.” Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., (quotation omitted); see also Minn. R. Civ.
  • Gilmore v. Walgreen Co. 759 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • Gilmore v. Walgreen Co. 759 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    ANALYSIS On appeal from summary judgment, we determine whether 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.” Osborne v. Twin Town *435 Bowl, Inc., see also Minn. R. Civ.