Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc., 898 N.W.2d 623.

273 citing documents.

R&P Industries, LLC, et al v. First Western Bank & Trust Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Charles Mach and Vicki Mach, as Trustees for the Next of Kin of Decedent Kailey Lynn Mach v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
We “review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
TD Bank USA, N.A. v. Benjamin Ree Minn. Ct. App. 2026
4 Appellate courts “review the grant of summary judgment de novo.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Joseph T. Green v. State National Insurance Company, Inc., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Appellate courts review a district court’s “grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Acoustics Associates, Inc. v. Rongitsch Construction, Inc., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2026
DECISION Appellate courts review summary-judgment determinations de novo “to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Josh Campion, et al v. National Collegiate Athletics Association, The Big Ten Conference, Inc., The University of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Appellate courts “review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted); see also Minn. R. Civ.
Ally Bank v. Serge N. Ngouambe Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“We review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Sibley Plaza Limited Partners, LP, et al v. MSP Tobacco and Vapor, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Richard Preston Blackwell v. Cub Foods, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Joe Schafer, et al., as Parents and Natural Guardians of Minor W.S. v. Oakwood Community Church Minn. Ct. App. 2026
PLLC , d 206, 215 (Minn. App. 2025) (alteration in original) (quoting Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., ), rev. denied (Minn. June 17, 2025).
Michael L Reger v. Edward B. Magarian, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2026
ANALYSIS Appellate courts review summary-judgment determinations de novo “to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Jacob R. Taylor, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Margaret Ann Kortas, a/k/a Margaret A. Kortas, a/k/a … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Michael Sarff v. James Sarff, Jeffrey Sarff, Dawn Fredlund, et al., vs. Michael Sarff, James Sarff, Jeffrey Sarff, … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Appellate courts review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo “to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Braulio Garcia v. Daikin Applied Americas Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo “to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Daniel Petsinger v. Steele County Recorder’s Office, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Susan Neegard v. Valley Golf Association Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The moving party has “the burden of showing an absence of factual issues,” and “the nonmoving party has the benefit of that view of the evidence most favorable to him.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotations omitted).
Ashley Anderson v. Adam Aaron Anderson, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (stating that a court “must not weigh facts or determine the credibility of affidavits and other evidence” at the summary-judgment stage (quotation omitted)); Abel v. Abbott Nw.
Ames Construction Inc. v. City of Moorhead Minn. Ct. App. 2026
W e review summary- judgment determinations de novo “to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
The Bank of New York Mellon fka The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the certificate holders … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Julie Massaquoi, et al v. Abe Al-Qudeh Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Julie Massaquoi, et al v. Abe Al-Qudeh Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
The Bank of New York Mellon fka The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the certificate holders … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo “to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Ashney Helleksen v. City of Good Thunder Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In conducting our review, we are mindful that “[s]ummary judgment is a blunt instrument that is inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotations omitted).
John Donahue v. Robert Donahue, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Appellate courts “review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Tory Brent Apps, et al v. Jesse Stowers Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Tory Brent Apps, et al v. Jesse Stowers Minn. Ct. App. 2026
4 “We review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
William Warner, et al v. Pines of North Oaks Home Owners’ Association, Inc., North Oaks Home Owners’ Association, … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Appellate courts review “grant[s] of summary judgment de novo.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Magnifi Financial Credit Union v. Harriet Lewis, The Patio Park Association, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A genuine issue of material fact exists “when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods ., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Linda A. Trampusch v. Truck Insurance Exchange Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Linda A. Trampusch v. Truck Insurance Exchange Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Appellate courts “review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its 5 application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Dametria White, et al., as co-trustees for the next-of-kin of Helayne Bass, deceased v. Park Nicollet Clinic Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Appellate courts “review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc., … Minn. 2026
Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc., … Minn. 2026
See Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Abdikafi Fowzi Abdi v. John Norman Melchior Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Appellate courts review de novo the grant of summary judgment to determine “whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Moline Machinery, LLC, et al v. City of Duluth Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Moline Machinery, LLC, et al v. City of Duluth Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., d 6 443, 450 n.4 (Minn. 2023).
Jacob Pries v. Whitewater Dairy, LLC, et al., vs. Bruce Kreofsky & Sons, Inc., a/k/a Great River Overhead … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Senogles, d at 43, 47 – 48; –07 (Minn. 2018); Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., 629–31 (Minn. 2017).
Jerry Lynn Schmidt v. James Ernest Grotluschen, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Appellate courts review de novo the grant of summary judgment to determine “whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Daniel Hatlevig v. Jason Schott, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Appellate courts “review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Troy Olds v. City of Moorhead Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., d 623, 628 (Minn. 2017).
Cheryl M. Shega v. American Bank of the North, et al., Laura Craig, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Great North Capital Consultants, Inc. v. Maciek G. Kaminski, et al., Kylie E. Kaminski Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Appellate courts review a district court’s “grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Steven Van Kuyk v. Linda Steen, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We review a district court’s “grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted); see Minn. R. Civ.
Charles Andrew Herold v. Grande Market Place Limited Partnership, Building Maintenance Management, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Summary judgment is a blunt instrument that is inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotations omitted).
Discover Bank v. Leon M Wiechmann Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Appellate courts review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment “to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Shona Tahiro, parent and natural guardian of Ramaden Waliye, a minor v. The Higher Ground Academy, Pride Transportation … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Inc., (quotations omitted).
Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company v. Bradshaw & Bryant Law Office PLLC Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Appellate courts “review [a] grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Daniel Brehmer v. Knife River Materials, Nebish Township, Beltrami County Minn. Ct. App. 2025
DECISION Appellate courts review a district court’s “grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Anshuman Bhatia, et al v. Joseph Anderson, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Appellate courts review a grant of summary judgment “de novo to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
William O. Bradley v. For Life Home Development LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2025
DECISION I. Summary Judgment Summary judgment is reviewed de novo to determine “whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” 6 Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., d 623, 628 (Minn. 2017).