Cited by

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).

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, ).

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).

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, ).

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).

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).

“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 Pro ds., Inc., (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, ).

See Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (“All doubts and factual inferences must be resolved against the moving party.” (quotation omitted)).

3 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., (quotation omitted).

Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.

See Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.

We review a district court’s summary-judgment decision 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.

See Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (describing summary-judgment standard).

“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).

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., (quotation omitted).

Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.

We review the 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).

Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.

DECISION 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.

“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).

1 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo to determine “whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., d 623, 628 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted); see also Minn. R. Civ.

Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., see also Kenneh v. Homeward Bound, Inc.

“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).

DECISION Appellate courts “review the grant of summary judgment de novo.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.

3 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., (quotation omitted).

8 We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo to determine “whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).

Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc.

Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., see Minn. R. Civ.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo to determine “whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation 5 omitted); see also Minn. R. Civ.

ANALYSIS 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).

We review de novo a 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); see also Minn. R. Civ.

“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 Products, Inc., (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, ).

did not violate the city’s tree and forest protection ordinance; and (4) failing to rule on appellant’s “motion for a revote.” On appeal from summary judgment, this court reviews “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 Prod., Inc., (quotation omitted).

Montemayor v. Sebright Prods ., Inc., .

An appellate court “review[s] 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, ); see also Minn. R. Civ.

Because these elements generally require factual determinations, “[s]ummary judgment is seldom granted on negligence issues.” see also Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (reversing grant of summary judgment in a negligence action because, in a “close case,” a jury should weigh evidence and make credibility determinations).

Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.