DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

268 citing documents.

  • Josh Campion, et al., Appellants, 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, Respondent, 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., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
  • Richard Preston Blackwell, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    See Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
  • Joe Schafer, et al., as Parents and Natural Guardians of Minor W.S., Appellants, 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, Appellant, 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, Respondent, 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, Appellant, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    See Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
  • Susan Neegard, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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., Appellant, 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 v. Abe Al-Qudeh Minn. Ct. App. 2026
  • Julie Massaquoi 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, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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 v. Jesse Stowers Minn. Ct. App. 2026
  • Tory Brent Apps 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., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    Appellate courts review “grant[s] of summary judgment de novo.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
  • Magnifi Financial Credit Union, Respondent, 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, Appellants, 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, Appellant, 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., Appellants, vs. City of Duluth, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • Moline Machinery, LLC, et al., Appellants, vs. City of Duluth, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., d 6 443, 450 n.4 (Minn. 2023).
  • Jacob Pries, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., d 623, 628 (Minn. 2017).
  • Cheryl M. Shega, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
  • Great North Capital Consultants, Inc., Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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, Respondent, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    Inc., (quotations omitted).
  • Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent, 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, Appellant, 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., Appellants, 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, Appellant, 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).
  • Lorob Properties LLC, et al., Respondents, 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).
  • Mark Weber, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    DECISION “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., (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, ).
  • Brian’s Lawn & Landscaping, Inc. dba Rock Hard Landscape Supply, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    On appeal, we review “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).
  • Petition of Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for an Order Directing Entry of New Certificate of Title After Mortgage … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    DECISION 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., (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, ).
  • Troy K Scheffler, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    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 law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., d 623, 628 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).