Cited by

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

273 citing documents.

Martin T. Breaker v. Bemidiji State University, et al 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 v. Consumers Cooperative Association of Litchfield Minn. Ct. App. 2019
’” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , (quoting Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC , ).
Ismail Ibrahim v. APCO Systems, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., see also Minn. R. Civ.
Carol Vanerka Stephens v. Stephen Stephens 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. v. Lonny D. Thomas, Mark A. Severson, et al., and Thomas Law, P.A., et … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods ., Inc., see also Minn. R. Civ.
Nicholas Johnson and Michelle Johnson, individually and as parents and natural guardians of D.J., a minor v. West … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
Ellis Olkon, et al v. City of Medina Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“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, ).
Fenrich v. Blake Sch. 920 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2018
Fenrich v. Blake Sch. 920 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2018
" Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , , 628 (Minn. 2017) (quoting Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. , , 371 (Minn. 2008) ); see also Senogles v. Carlson , , 42 (Minn. 2017).
Sonja Jeanne Timmons, individually, and as mother and natural guardian of Jadyn Bentlie Haugen, Kaily Marie Timmons and … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
For purposes of summary judgment, however, “all facts and the inferences arising from them must be considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
John Doe 121 v. Diocese of Winona, St. Mary's Catholic Church Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Senogles , d at 43 (“As we reaffirmed recently, when the issue of foreseeability is clear, the court, as a matter of law, should decide it, but in close cases, the issue of foreseeabili ty is for the jury.”); see also Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc.
In re Minn. Living Assistance, Inc. 919 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re Minn. Living Assistance, Inc. 919 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , , 628 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).
Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy, LLC v. Comm'r of Revenue 916 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 2018
Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy, LLC v. Comm'r of Revenue 916 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 2018
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , , 628 (Minn. 2017).
Jennifer Smith, individually and as parent and natural guardian of Zoeie Meister, a minor v. Patricia J. Holloman, … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (quotations and citation omitted).
The Tap House Restaurant Group, LLC v. Cassidy Turley Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. d/b/a Cushman & Wakefield, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , (stating that summary judgment must be denied when reasonable minds could disagree on the question of foreseeability) .
Laymon v. Minnesota Premier Properties, LLC 903 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Laymon v. Minnesota Premier Properties, LLC 903 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
ately upon Howard Laymon’s death, subject to [Mary Laymon]’s right of administration,” and that John Laymon’s “devolved one-third interest in the [subject property] was assignable.” Appellate courts review 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).
Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
Montemayor v. Se-bright Prods., Inc., , 27 n.3 (Minn. 2011); -68 (Minn. 2007) (citing Whiteford, d at 918 ); III.
Fenrich v. Blake School 901 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Fenrich v. Blake School 901 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
); see also Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., -33 (Minn. 2017) (analyzing foreseeability in context of product-liability case).