Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Patrick Finn and Lighthouse Management Group, Inc., Appellants/Cross-Respondents v. Allia…, 860 N.W.2d 638.

62 citing documents.

MJ aka Elissa Wall, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Marjorie Schroeder, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to rule 12.02(e) , a district court must “consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and must construe all reasonabl e inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” (quotation omitted).
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Bank, (quotation omitted).
MOAC Mall Holdings, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Matthew Eric Zinda, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to rule 12.02(e), a district court must “consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Keith Ellison v. American Petroleum Institute, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Keith Ellison v. American Petroleum Institute, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In reviewing whether a complaint is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, we must “consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true” and “construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” (quotation omitted).
Shields Law Group, LLC, Spencer Shields v. Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Watts ... Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Shields Law Group, LLC, Spencer Shields v. Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Watts ... Minn. Ct. App. 2026
When applying rule 12.02(e), a court considers “only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true, and must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” (quotation omitted).
Alex Sajady, et al., Appellants, vs. Tracy Sajady, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Alex Sajady, et al., Appellants, vs. Tracy Sajady, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to rule 12.02(e), a district court must “consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” (quotation omitted).
Barnabas A. Yohannes, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to rule 12.02(e), a district court must “consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and must construe all reasonable 5 inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” (quotation omitted).
Elfi E Janssen v. Lommen, Abdo, Cole, King & Stageberg P. A., Sibley ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Elfi E Janssen v. Lommen, Abdo, Cole, King & Stageberg P. A., Sibley ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The act “allows creditors to recover assets that debtors have fraudulently transferred to third parties.”
James R. Martin, Patrick S. Martin v. Mid-America Festivals Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2023
James R. Martin, Patrick S. Martin v. Mid-America Festivals Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Bank, (quotation omitted).
Sally Cooper Smith, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Likewise, this court has repeatedly described its role as “an error correcting court.” (stating that we do not change existing law); (quotation omitted), aff’d as modified
Lariat Companies Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Bank, (quotation and citation omitted).
Lavonia M. Bell, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Bank , (quotation omitted).
Louis Reis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Bank, (quotation omitted).
Odyssey Medica_l Technologies, LLC, Appellant, vs. Medtronic, Inc., Respondent. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
BDS Laundry Management Company, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Bank, (quotation omitted).
Thomas M. Fafinski, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Great Plains Educational Foundation, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
MUVTA, Minnesota statutes se ctions 513.41-.51, is intended “to prevent debtors from placing property that is otherwise available for the payment of their debts out of the reach of their creditors.” (quotation omitted).
Katherine Marie Doornbos, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We “are not bound by legal conclusions stated in a complaint when determining whether the complaint survives a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” -54 (Minn. 2015) (quotations omitted).
N.H., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In considering such a motion, a district court must “consider only the facts alleged in the complaint .” Finn v. Alliance Bank , (quotation omitted).
Lariat Companies, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The purpose of MUFTA is “to prevent debtors from placing property that is otherwise available for the payment of their debts out of the reach of their creditors.” (quotation marks omitted).
Community Finance Group, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to rule 12.02(e), a district court must “consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Finn v. Alliance Bank , (quotation omitted).
Minn. 2019
(quoting N. States Power Co. v. Franklin , (noting that because t he only factual information on a motion to dismiss is that which is disclosed by the pleadings as a whole, the dismissal function is “extremely limited”))
Ellen Louise Arnt, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bank, d 585, 603 (Minn. App. 2013), aff’d as modified, N. Star Int’l Trucks, Inc. v. Navistar, Inc. , State v. Kelley , aff’d on other grounds
Jill Hansen, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A district court may only dismiss a complaint under Rule 12.02(e) if it appears to a certainty that no facts, which could be introduced consistent with the pleading, exist which would support granting the relief demanded.” (quotation omitted).
Hall v. State 908 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 2018
Hall v. State 908 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 2018
Finn v. Alliance Bank , , 653 (Minn. 2015).
A17-0297 A17-0059 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Favors v. Kneisel 902 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Favors v. Kneisel 902 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Bank, (quotation omitted).
Poehler v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. 899 N.W.2d 135 Minn. 2017
Troy K. Scheffler v. City of Anoka, City of Coon Rapids, Hicken, Scott, Howard & Anderson, P. A. 890 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Greenpond South, LLC v. General Electric Capital Corp. 886 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Greenpond South, LLC v. General Electric Capital Corp. 886 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
First United v. Four Corners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Landmark Community Bank, N.A. v. John D. Klingelhutz 874 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Landmark Community Bank, N.A. v. John D. Klingelhutz 874 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[F]raudulent intent must be determined in light of the facts and circumstances of each case.” -48 (Minn. 2015).
Valerie R. LeMaster v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC fka Green Tree Financial Servicing Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Valerie R. LeMaster v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC fka Green Tree Financial Servicing Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Teresa McDonald v. Allina Health System d/b/a United Hospital Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Teresa McDonald v. Allina Health System d/b/a United Hospital Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bank, (quotation omitted).
Anil Ramkissoon as assignee of David Olson v. Western National Mutual Insurance Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Anil Ramkissoon as assignee of David Olson v. Western National Mutual Insurance Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ezell Moore, individually and as trustee for the heirs of Valerie M. VanMieghem, Decedent v. CenterPoint Energy Resources … Minn. Ct. App. 2015

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by