Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp., 816 N.W.2d 572.

56 citing documents.

Eischen v. Crystal Valley Cooperative 835 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Eischen v. Crystal Valley Cooperative 835 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
See Grady v. Green Acres, Inc., (“The first step in determining whether primary assumption of the risk applies is to determine whether the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff.” (quotation omitted)); (“If no duty exists, it is error for the district court to submit the negligence claim to the jury.”).
Gieseke ex rel. Diversified Water Diversion, Inc. v. IDCA, Inc. 826 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Gieseke ex rel. Diversified Water Diversion, Inc. v. IDCA, Inc. 826 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Appellate courts review de novo a district court’s denial of a JMOL motion, and in doing so, “apply the same standard the district court uses,” “constru[ing] the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party” to determine whether “ ‘there is [a] legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find’ ” for the party denied JMOL.
Kellogg v. Finnegan 823 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Kellogg v. Finnegan 823 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“Duty is a threshold question.”