Cited by

(noting that the general rule is that the “party who stands to benefit from proving the affirmative of a proposition of fact .

On appeal from a grant of summary judgment, appellate courts review de novo “whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in applying the law.”

“Easements are among the property interests that can be eliminated under the MTA.”

Sampair v. Village of Birchwood

“Easements are among the property interests that can be eliminated under the MTA.”

“The MTA applies to every property interest ‘founded by any instrument, event or transaction that is at least 40 years old.’” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 541.023, subd.

See, e.g., Hagen v. Steven Scott Mgmt., Inc., (disregarding “self -serving affidavit” that contradicts employment offer) ; ( evaluating purported contradiction between affidavit and attached letters in context of sham -affidavit doctrine ); Risdall v. Brown- Wilbert, Inc. , (applying sham - affidavit doctrine in securities -fraud cas e involving affidavit conflicting with private - pl

In determining whether genuine issues of material fact exist, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to “the party against whom summary judgment was granted.”

of Birchwood, n.9 (Minn. 2010) (n oting that “a party cannot create an issue for trial by directly contradicting prior sworn testimony with a later-filed self-serving affidavit”); U.S. ex rel.

“Easements are among the property interests that can be eliminated under the MTA.”

(reversing summary judgment against appellants whose affidavits created genuine issues of material fact).