Cited by

Paul & Minneapolis, (explaining that appellate courts “may affirm a grant of summary judgment if it can be sustained on any grounds”).

Paul, (quotation omitted).

Paul, (quotation omitted).

Paul, (stating that an appellate court “need not adopt the reasoning of the district court ” and “may affirm a grant of summary judgment if it can be sustained on any grounds”).

Paul, (“[I]n order to establish that there is a disputed material fact, the party against whom summary judgment was granted must present specific admissible facts showing a material fact issue.” (quotation omitted)).

Paul & Minneapolis, d 150 (Minn. 2012).

Paul, (“[W]e may affirm a grant of summary judgment if it can be sustained on any grounds.”).

Paul, (concluding that we “may affirm a grant of summary judgment if it can be sustained on any grounds”).

Paul, (stating that “we may affirm a grant of summary judgment if it can be sustained on any grounds”).

Paul, (“[I]n order to establish that there is a disputed material fact, the party against whom summary judgment was granted must present specific admissible facts showing a material fact issue.” (quotation omitted)).

Paul, (stating that “we may affirm a grant of summary judgment if it can be sustained on any grounds”).

Paul, we may decline to consider alternative grounds for summary judgment that the district court did not address, d 323, 329-30 (Minn. App. 2014) (declining to address on appeal alternative arguments that the district court did not address in the first instance), rev. deni

Paul, , 163 (Minn. 2012), we may decline to consider alternative grounds for summary judgment that the district court did not address, -30 (Minn. App. 2014), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.

Paul & Minneapolis, and “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted,” J.E.B., d at 746.

Paul, it is not clear to us, on this record, that the issues were properly presented in the district court or may be resolved based on the record developed there.

Paul, (stating a district court’s summary-judgment order may be affirmed if the decision is correct on other grounds).

Paul, (stating that appellate courts may “affirm a grant of summary judgment if it can be sustained on any grounds”).

Paul , d 150, 156 (Minn. 2012) (describing what is commonly referred to as the “Frye-Mack” standard).

See Doe 76C v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis, (stating that appellate courts may affirm a grant of summary judgment if it can be sustained on any grounds presented to the district court).

Paul, -171 (Minn. 2012).

Paul , (discussing the prior version of Rule 702).

Paul , (affirming summary judgment decision on grounds not addressed by the district court).