Cited by

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

273 citing documents.

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 v. Jennifer Culver 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 v. St. Paul Area Electrical JATC Registered Apprenticeship Program Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General Keith Ellison v. Howard W. Mostad 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 v. Jason D. Ferguson, Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Co. 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).
In re the Trust of Donald Roy Scheid and June Vivian Scheid, Joint Revocable Trust Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Merchant & Gould P.C. v. Larry Holmberg Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Appellate courts review the grant of summa ry judgment de novo to determine “whether there are genuine issues of ma terial fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Jenny Pachicano v. Julie Ward 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., (quotation omitted).
In re the Estate of: Richard W. Koberoski, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Summary judgment should not be granted when reasonable persons could draw different conclusions 6 from the evidence presented, Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , or when there are differing reasonable inferences from undisputed facts
Detailed by Design LLC v. Linda Langer, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
This court “ review[s] the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether there are genuine iss ues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Kawaljit S. Bhatia, as Trustee for the next of kin of Ena M. Bhatia, deceased v. Owners Insurance … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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).
Cole Clark v. Brian Goihl, et al., vs. Andrew Arens Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , 8 (Minn. 2017).
Kevin Kopka, et al., individually and as parents and natural guardians of minor children B. Kopka and I. … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Standard of Review On appeal from a grant of summary judgment, we apply a de novo standard of review “to determine whether there are genuine iss ues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Bella Vista Condominium Association, et al v. Western National Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods, Inc.
Everest Stables, Inc. v. Foley & Mansfield, LLP, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“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).
Vicki Metcalf v. Allina Health System Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Montemayor v. Sebright Prod s., Inc. , .
Minnesota Bank & Trust v. 11 Water LLC, et al., David Jon Monson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Lacey C. Washington v. State of Minnesota, et al., Minnesota Department of Corrections Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Lighthouse Management Inc. v. Oberg Family Farms, et al., American Federal Bank, Gateway Building Systems, Inc., CITYWide Electric, … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
But at the summary-judgment stage, the district court must not “weigh facts or determine the credibility of affi davits and other evidence.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quo tation omitted).
Whitefish Enterprises, LLC v. Dan Leagjeld, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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).
In the Matter of the Petition of Jane Serrano and Lynn Barbeau for certain relief relating to lands … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Alerus Financial, N.A. v. Aaron Carlson Corporation, Jason Horner Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
A minor, by and through her mother and natural guardian, Amber Nelson v. Fairview Health Services d/b/a/ Fairview … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Charlene Y. Latham v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
In the Matter of the Trust Agreement of Julian M. Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“We review the grant of summ ary judgment de novo to determine whether there are genuine issues of ma terial fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Minnesota Sporting Clays Association v. National Casualty Company, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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).
Docks of White Bear Lake, LLC v. Dockside Waterski Company, d/b/a Tally's Dockside, and City of White Bear … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“We review the grant of su mmary 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 , ).
Jomari E. Alexander, Sr. v. Paul Strong, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., d 623, 628 (Minn. 2017).
Paul Boyum v. Federal National Mortgage Association "Fannie Mae", et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
On appeal from a grant of summary judgment, w e apply a de novo standard of review “to determine ‘whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whethe r the district court erred in its application of the law.’” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, ) .
Theresa M. Anderson v. MidFirst Bank, Collection Resource LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Capacity Wireless, LLC v. Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“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).
Pharaoh El-Forever Left-i Amen El v. Jeff Titus, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Appellate courts “rev iew 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 Kenneh v. Homeward Bound, Inc.
Farmers Mill & Elevator, Inc. v. Ivan D. Kohout, Roundbank Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Montemayor v. Sebright Prod., Inc., Minn. R. Civ.
Paul Nelsen, Peter Nelsen, et al., individually and as interested persons for the benefit of the Estate of … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Nathan Mead, Amy Mead v. BNSF Railway Company, Ture Lee on related appeal, and BNSF Railway Company vs. … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine “whether ther e 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).
Tunde Oni v. Target Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
William Hansen d/b/a W.G. Hansen & Associates v. Teleplus Consulting, Inc., and William G. Hansen, vs. David E. … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Travis Colsen v. Bright Birch, Inc. d/b/a Bright Birch Real Estate and d/b/a Bright Birch, a Minnesota corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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).
Wade S. Nukala v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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).
Ellen Kalahar-Grissom v. Marvin W. Stroschein, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Montemayor v. Sebright Prod., Inc.
Devon T. Hogan, et al v. William F. Brass Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Bradley Hammond, et al v. Andrew Grengs Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., see also Minn. R. Civ.
Steven Schussler, et al v. City of the Village of Minnetonka Beach, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Daniel Ashbach v. Warren Peterson, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Charles Richard Stone v. Kevin Moser, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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, ).
Knife River Corporation-North Central v. Whited Township Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Independent School District No. 477 v. Midwest Asphalt Corporation, Court Surfaces & Repair, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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 law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotatio n 7 omitted).
Richard T. Jellinger, et al v. City of Anoka, Jefferson L. Weaver, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In reviewing the district court’s grant of summary judgment, we review de novo “whether there are any issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Phillip Musselman, et al v. Target Corporation, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
D E C I S I O N Minnesota 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, ); see Minn. R. Civ.
Ola Abdelaziz v. Jeffrey D. Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Appellate courts “review the grant of 5 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) .