DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

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.

  • Susan Schneider, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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, Appellant, B&T Automotive, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    P. 56.01, and we review summary-judgment decisions de novo, Montemayor v. Sebright Prod., Inc.
  • Clarence Hightower, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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., Appellants, 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., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
  • Wayne E. Hukriede, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
  • Leonard Zimmer, et al., Appellants, 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, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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, Respondent, 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, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
  • Anthony Novak, Respondent, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
  • JMH Land Development Company LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    Montemayor v. Sebright Prod., Inc.
  • Jonathan G. Foss, Respondent, 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, Appellant, 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., Respondent, 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., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
  • Daniel J. Engstrom, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    Montemayor v. Sebright Prod., Inc., d 623, 628 (Minn. 2017).
  • Tyler Rentfrow, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    ” Montemayor v. Sebright Prod., Inc., (quotation omitted).
  • City Bella Commercial, L.L.C., et al., Respondents, 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., Appellants, 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, Appellants, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
  • Nancy Wambach, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    See Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
  • Matthew Braith, et al., Respondents, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
  • George Hadrich, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
  • Byron Johnson, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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., Appellants, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
  • Progressive Insurance, Respondent, 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, Appellant, 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., Appellants, 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., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
  • In the Matter of the Estate of: Mathew Joseph Tomczik, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    4 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).
  • Larry John Laver, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    Summary judgment is “inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prod., Inc. , (quotations omitted).
  • Damon Doss, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
  • State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General Keith Ellison, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    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 D. Island, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    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).