Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Senogles v. Carlson, 902 N.W.2d 38.

74 citing documents.

Andrew Geist, individually and as parent and natural guardian of minor, T.G., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“In close cases, the issue of foreseeability should be submitted to the jury.” (quotation omitted); see also Fenrich, d at 205; Montemayor, d at 630.
Minn. 2019
Cory L. Hendricksen, as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Ashton Hendricksen, decedent, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re Restorff 932 N.W.2d 12 Minn. 2019
Warren v. Dinter 926 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2019
Warren v. Dinter 926 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2019
Senogles v. Carlson , , 42 (Minn. 2017).
Ismail Ibrahim, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Henson v. Uptown Drink, LLC 922 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2019
Henson v. Uptown Drink, LLC 922 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2019
Senogles v. Carlson , , 42 (Minn. 2017).
Generations Law Office, Ltd., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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).
Aaron Carlson Corp. v. Cohen 919 N.W.2d 831 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Aaron Carlson Corp. v. Cohen 919 N.W.2d 831 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Senogles v. Carlson , , 42 (Minn. 2017).
John Doe 121, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,” and this court reviews a district court’s grant of summar y judgment de novo “to 9 determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the court erred in its application of the law.” Senogles v. Carlson , (internal citations omitted).
County of Pope, Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Evidence is viewed “in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.”
Steven Brown, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
5 A plaintiff seeking to prove a negligence claim must establish “(1) the existence of a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) an injury, and (4) the breach of duty being the proximate cause of the injury.”
Ahmed Said, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Evidence is 3 viewed “in the light most favorable to the party against whom sum mary judgment was granted.”
Jennifer Smith, individually and as parent and natural guardian of Zoeie Meister, a minor, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
” Senogles v. Carlson , (quotations omitted).
Said Ahmed Nur, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Whether a danger is ‘obvious’ is an objective test.” Senogles v. Carlson
Manor Warehouse & Delivery, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
” d 38, 42 (Minn. 2017).
Buskey v. Am. Legion Post 910 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2018
Buskey v. Am. Legion Post 910 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2018
P. 56.03 ; see Senogles v. Carlson , , 49 (Minn. 2017) (providing that a fact is material "when its resolution will affect the outcome of the case").
David Homick, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The latter ha lf of the rule, concerning whether a landowner should anticipate th e harm despite such knowledge or obviousness, is “an exception to the exception.”

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by