Cited by

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

268 citing documents.

Mark R. Krampf, Appellant, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Assata Kenneh, Minn. 2020
See Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Ruth Crosby, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
North Mill Equipment Finance, LLC, Respondent, 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, Appellant, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., 5
Ransford Frimpong, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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., Appellants, 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, Respondent, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Farmers State Bank of Trimont, Appellant, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Affordable Home Builders, Inc., Respondent, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Inc. , (citation omitted).
Andrew Geist, individually and as parent and natural guardian of minor, T.G., Appellant, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
SRRT Properties, LP, Respondent, 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, Appellant, vs. Abbott Northwestern Hospital, et al., Respondents, St. Mary's University Minnesota, Respondent. 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
A19-0155 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, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
County of Sherburne, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., 5
Abdel Elnashar, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Keith B. Hagen, et al., Appellants, 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, petitioner, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., see also Minn. R. Civ.
Martin T. Breaker, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When promulgating amendments to rule 56, effective on July 1, 2018 and applicable to pending cases, the supreme court specifically indicated that amended 7 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).
Oluf Johnson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
’” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC , ).
Ismail Ibrahim, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., see also Minn. R. Civ.
Carol Vanerka Stephens, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
to deter mine whether there are genuin e issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Generations Law Office, Ltd., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods ., Inc., see also Minn. R. Civ.