Cited by

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

273 citing documents.

William M. Dunkley, et al v. Greg W. Hueler, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Samson Longtin v. Jeffrey Scott Pollard, Aaron Michael Voges 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 the law.’” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc ., (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC , ).
Carnea Roberson v. STI International, Bill’s Gun Shop 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 the law.’” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC , ).
Minn. 2020
P. 56.01, district courts are asked to determ ine whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists by evaluating whether “reasonable pers ons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , (citations omitted) (internal q uotation marks omitted).
Bert Lawrence Pexsa, et al v. Disabled American Veterans of Minnesota Foundation Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Summary judgment is “inappropriate when 5 reasonable per sons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prod., Inc. , (quotation omitted).
Mark R. Krampf v. University of Minnesota, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Therefore, [appellant] cannot recover damages and there is no issue of fact left to be decided.” 17 “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 , ).
H. Joseph Slater, Kimberly Devine, et al v. Wabasha County Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Assata Kenneh, Minn. 2020
See Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Ruth Crosby v. Champagne D’Argent Rabbit Federation Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
North Mill Equipment Finance, LLC v. Gruz Boga, LLC and Third Party Plaintiff, Petro Siruk and third party … 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. , (quotation omitted).
Save Lake Calhoun, Minn. 2020
See, e.g., Montemayor v. Sebright Prods ., Inc., d 623, 628 (Minn. 2017) (noting that summary judgment is “inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different conclusion s from the evidence ” (citatio n omitted) (inte r na l quotation marks omitted)).
Robert Grado v. Integrated Office Solutions Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
D E C I S I O N 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).
Jeffrey J. Boelter v. Jeramie R. Steinert Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., 5
Ransford Frimpong v. Taylor Ridge 26 LLC and third-party plaintiff, vs. Taylor Ridge Condominium Association, Inc., et al., … 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 the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Paul Stepnes v. Beth Trautman, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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).
John Mullaney v. University of St. Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Appellate courts review the grant of summary judgment 5 de novo to determine “whether there are genui ne issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , (quotati on omitted).
Catherine Jordan v. Town of Brevator Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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).
Aegis Insurance Services, LTD., and other interested insurers as subrogees of Northern States Power Co. and Southern Minnesota … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
TMT Management Group, LLC, et al v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., Wilbur Tate, United Credit Recovery, … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“We review the grant of summary judgment de 7 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., d 623, 628 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).
R&S Crossing, LLC v. AF Enterprises, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Appellate courts review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine “whether there are genui ne issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , (quotation omitted).
John Arthur Olson v. Bristol West Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Farmers State Bank of Trimont v. Joel S. Rabbe, Kristen C. Rabbe, Jon E. Rabbe, Debra A. Rabbe, … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We review a “grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and wh ether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , (quotation omitted).
Calm Waters, LLC, a Limited Liability Company under the laws of Minnesota v. Town of Kroschel, a political … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Affordable Home Builders, Inc. v. Bear Road LLC, Gregory P. Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Appellate courts review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine “whether there are genui ne issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , 5 (quotation omitted).
Thumper Pond Resort, LLC d/b/a Thumper Pond Resort v. Stock Building Supply Midwest, LLC, et al., Kaashagen & … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Inc. , (citation omitted).
Andrew Geist, individually and as parent and natural guardian of minor, T.G. v. East Central Energy, One Way … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“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).
Waasohn Dorliae v. Metro Transit Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
SRRT Properties, LP, IDC Properties, LLC v. Nova Consulting Group, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(reversing summary judgment because the facts presented a close question on the issue of foreseeability “for the fact-finder to decide at trial”); Montemayor v. Sebright Prod., Inc., (reversing summary judgment because the issue of foreseeability was “a close call” that is “for the factfinder to resolve”).
Meagan Abel v. Abbott Northwestern Hospital, et al., St. Mary's University Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
In the Matter of Minnesota Living Assistance, Inc., d/b/a Baywood Home Care Minn. 2019
See, –06 (Minn. 2018) (concluding that summary judgment is improper when “view[ing] all of the evidence and the reasonable D-3 inferences from it in favor of the non-moving party,” a “close call” on the disputed issue is presented); Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (concluding that summary judgment is improper when facts must be weighed or credibility assessed).
A Xiong v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Deborah J. Palmer, surviving spouse and Trustee for the heirs of Gary J. Palmer v. Walker Jamar Company … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Appellate courts review a grant of sum mary 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).
Ashen S. Diehl v. 3M Company Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (stating that “it is well established that manufacturers can be held liable despite intervening circumstances .
Thomas Sullivan, as guardian and conservator for Marc L. Beeman v. Randy F. Boggio Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“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).
Friends to Restore St. Mary's, LLC v. Church of Saint Mary, Melrose, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , .
In the Matter of the Bette R. Peterson Revocable Trust, Dated August 8, 1996, as Amended, In the … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Moore v. City of New Brighton 932 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Moore v. City of New Brighton 932 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , , 628 (Minn. 2017).
City of Baxter v. City of Brainerd 932 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
City of Baxter v. City of Brainerd 932 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , , 628 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted); see also Hanbury v. Am.
Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc. 929 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2019
Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc. 929 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2019
See Henson , d at 190 ; Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , , 628 (Minn. 2017).
Axia Contracting, LLC v. Jon Grefsrud, et al., Minnesota National Bank Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
County of Sherburne v. Steven D. Weese, vs. County of Sherburne, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., 5
Abdel Elnashar v. Summit Orthopedics, Ltd., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Keith B. Hagen, et al v. Windemere Township Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“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 , ).
State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation v. Robert Carlson, et al. Below, Rosemary R. Elbert, et … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Warren v. Dinter 926 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2019
Warren v. Dinter 926 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2019
" Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , , 628 (Minn. 2017) (quoting Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. , , 371 (Minn. 2008) ).
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Courtney Thompson, Gabriela Von Mende, et al./counterclaim plaintiffs/third party plaintiffs, vs. … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., see also Minn. R. Civ.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by