Cited by

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

273 citing documents.

Craig A Reichel, et al v. Wendland Utz, LTD, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Ali Alfureedy, et al v. City of Saint Paul Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Cambria Company, LLC v. M&M Creative Laminants, Inc. dba M&M Creative Laminates, Inc. (A22-0723) (A22-0724), Leland P. Schermer … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“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, ).
Makenzie Moore, a minor, by and through her Conservator, First Fiduciary Corporation v. Maple Grove Hospital, Premier OBGYN … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
South Country Health Alliance, et al v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, et al., Medica Health Plans, HMO … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Susan Schneider v. Max Schmidt, et al., KMAX Paradise Pork, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“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 Prod., Inc., (citation and quotation omitted).
Jane Doe v. Special School District No. 6, South St. Paul Public Schools, ABC School District, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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); see also Minn. R. Civ.
Thomas Shimota, B&T Automotive, Inc., et al v. Klemp & Stanton, PLLP, et al., Estate of Robert Shimota, … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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 8 application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Brian Vitek as Trustee for the next-of-kin of Patric Vitek, deceased v. The City of Eagan, Co-Appellant, Dakota … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
P. 56.01, and we review summary-judgment decisions de novo, Montemayor v. Sebright Prod., Inc.
Clarence Hightower v. Community Action Partnership of Ramsey and Washington Counties Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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).
Mark Krampf v. University of Minnesota, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“We review the grant of summary judgment de novo t o 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).
Janet C. Dreyer, et al v. Reierson Construction, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“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, ).
Hader Properties, LLC, et al v. State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Wayne E. Hukriede, et al v. Melanie A. Engh-Liska, aka Melanie A. Liska, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Leonard Zimmer, et al v. Pine Lake Township Minn. Ct. App. 2023
ANALYSIS “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).
Carl Green v. USA Towing & Recovery, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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., 1 USA Towing is the trade name of respondent Troy’s Towing LLC, and respondent Troy Dewall is one of the owners of USA Towing.
Jeffrey D. Kuhn v. Richard G. Dunn, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
v. Gaylord ’s, Inc., -65 (Minn. 2009); Roemhildt v. Kristall Dev., Inc. , rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2011); see also, e.g., Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., (applying a de novo standard of review to the decision to grant a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim); Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (applying a de novo standard of review to the decision to grant a summary judgment motion).
Western National Mutual Insurance Company v. Alyssa Marie Donahue, Scott Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Minor Doe 601, a minor, by and through his mother and natural guardian, Mother Doe 601 v. Best … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Anthony Novak v. Lorie Miller, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
DECISION This court reviews 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); see also Minn. R. Civ.
Doe 598 v. Special School Dist. No. 6, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
JMH Land Development Company LLC v. Siegle Family Limited Partnership Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Montemayor v. Sebright Prod., Inc.
Jonathan G. Foss v. Mark Scott Savage, Susan Foss, et al., Third Party Defendants Minn. Ct. App. 2023
We review de novo “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., (quot ation omitted).
Douglas Kemp v. State Farm Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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 Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Ronald G. Davis, Personal Representative of the Estate of Roger F. Davis and Trustee of the Toivo W. … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Appellate courts “review the 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., (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, ).
International Fluid Power, Inc. v. Holb-Gunther, LLC, d/b/a Sea -Legs Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A genuine issue of material fact exists “when reasonable pe rsons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prod., Inc., .
Minn. 2022
In doing so, we do not “weigh facts or determine the credibility of affidavits and other evidence.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prod., Inc., (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, ).
Steven D. Woodke, et al v. Travis Bracha, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Tyler Rentfrow v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2022
” Montemayor v. Sebright Prod., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Daniel J. Engstrom v. Whitebirch Inc., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Montemayor v. Sebright Prod., Inc., d 623, 628 (Minn. 2017).
City Bella Commercial, L.L.C., et al v. City Bella on Lyndale Minn. Ct. App. 2022
DECISION 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 Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
In re the Matter of Michael Wartman, et al., and the Commissioner of Crystal Bay Township, Janet Rothbart Minn. Ct. App. 2022
This court reviews the 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 omitted); see Minn. R. Civ.
Kelly Schneider, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Children’s Health Care, d/b/a … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
4 ANALYSIS 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).
Dr. Eric Ringsred v. City of Duluth, et al., Duluth News Tribune, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Nancy Wambach v. Phillip D. Robley, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Court of Appeals Hudson, J. Dissenting as to Part I, Anderson, J., David Smits, as Trustee for the … Minn. 2022
See Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Dr. Eric Steffen v. Scott Uttley, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We review de novo the 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).
Under the Rainbow Early Education Center, Minn. 2022
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Landform Professional Services, LLC v. Kevin Lefebvre, et al., The Bank of Elk River, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Matthew Braith, et al v. Laurie Ann Duban, et al., Aaron Todd Kasparek, and Nicole Lynn Campbell f/k/a … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
DECISION “We 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).
Tony Jacobson v. AOM Holdings, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
George Hadrich, et al v. Sylvester Geise, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Byron Johnson v. Kaija Freborg Minn. Ct. App. 2022
C/D-3 2020) (quotation omitted); see also Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (stating that when reviewing a grant of summary judgment, an appellate court must not weigh facts or determine the credibility of affidavits and other evidence and that “the nonmoving party has the benefit of that view of the evidence most favorable to him” (quotation omitted)).
Trygve Svard v. Camelot Nine Encore Association Minn. Ct. App. 2022
This 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., (quotation omitted).
Mark Rodgers, et al v. Ronald K. Carpenter, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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., (quotations omitted).
Scott Parks v. Covidien Holding, Inc., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Progressive Insurance v. Justin Abel, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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).
Brandow Properties, LLC v. Katherine M. Melander, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
This 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 Prod., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Allstate Indemnity Company, et al v. Twin Cities Diagnostic Center, L.L.C., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
4 ANALYSIS “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).
NSE, Inc., et al v. C. G. H., Corp., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by