Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Burt v. Rackner, Inc., 902 N.W.2d 448.

35 citing documents.

Walter Smith v. Eric A. Johnson, Steven Scott Properties Management, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Walter Smith v. Eric A. Johnson, Steven Scott Properties Management, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
& Univs., (rule 12.02); (rule 12.03).
Larry A Koch v. Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, Hennepin County, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Larry A Koch v. Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, Hennepin County, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“We review a district court’s decision on a Rule 12.03 motion de novo to determine whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Burt v. Rackner, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Smith Jadin Johnson, PLLC, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
7 We review a district court’s decision on a motion for judgment on the pleadings de novo “to determine whether the complaint set s forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Burt v. Rackner, Inc., (quotation omitted) .
Robert Montague, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Gregory Avery, Jr., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“We review a district court’s decision on a Rule 12.03 motion de novo to determine whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Burt v. Rackner, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Lake Minnetonka Real Estate II, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
P. 12.03 “to determine whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Burt v. Rackner, Inc., (citation omitted) (quotation marks omitted).
Angeleah Joy Brandt, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
When a party challenges a district court’s judgment -on-the-pleadings decision, appellate courts “consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and drawing reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Burt v. Rackner, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Maria Olson v. City of Cambridge, Jay T. Squires, Lisa Iverson, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Maria Olson v. City of Cambridge, Jay T. Squires, Lisa Iverson, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
courts “review de novo whether a complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief” and, in doing so, they “accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., (reviewing a district court’s grant of a rule 12.02(e) motion); see also Burt v. Rackner, Inc., (“We review a district court’s decision on a Rule 12.03 motion de novo to determine whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient
Peter Gerard Lonergan, John Joseph Kotowski v. Dakota County Social Services, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Peter Gerard Lonergan, John Joseph Kotowski v. Dakota County Social Services, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Anthony, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
P. 12.03 , appellate courts “consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and drawing reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Burt v. Rackner, Inc., (citation omitted).
Benda for Common-sense, a Minnesota Non-Profit Corporation v. Denise Anderson, Director of Rice ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Benda for Common-sense, a Minnesota Non-Profit Corporation v. Denise Anderson, Director of Rice ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
P. 12.03,” an appellate court considers only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting them “as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Burt v. Rackner, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Morex Properties, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Stacy Demskie, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Burt v. Rackner, Inc., (quotation omitted); see also Sec.
Mesabi Metallics Company, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Burt v. Rackner, Inc., (providing that, on appeal from a grant of judgment on the pleadings, appellate courts accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party).
Aaron J. Harkins, Minn. 2022
P. 12.03 de novo “to determine whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Burt v. Rackner, Inc., (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Lisa Thielen, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Aspenwood Condominium of Duluth, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
RSS Fridley, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Gary Gruett, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
3 On appeal from a rule 12.03 dismissal, we review the district court’s decision de novo “to determine whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Burt v. Rackner, Inc., d 448, 451 (Minn. 2017) (citation omitted).
In the Matter of the Application of: Hollis John Larson for a Change of Name. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
.” Burt v. Rackner, Inc., (quotation omitted) ; see also Minn. R. Civ.
Tyler Halva, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
This court reviews a district court’s grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings “to determine whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Burt v. Rackner, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Arch Apartment Management L.L.C., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When considering an appeal from a district court’s grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 12.03, we evaluate a district court’s decision de novo “to determine whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Burt v. Rackner, Inc. , (quotation omitted).
Abdiaziz H. Hirsi, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
33 City Center Holding LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In determining whether the district court properly granted judgment on the 4 pleadings, this court “consider [s] only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Burt v. Rackner, Inc., Minn. R. Civ.
Daniel v. City of Minneapolis 923 N.W.2d 637 Minn. 2019
Daniel v. City of Minneapolis 923 N.W.2d 637 Minn. 2019
We interpret statutes de novo, Burt v. Rackner, Inc. , , 451 (Minn. 2017), to "ascertain and effectuate" the Legislature's intent, Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2018).
Curtis McCoy, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Sec. Bank & Trust Co. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 916 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2018
Sec. Bank & Trust Co. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 916 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2018
" Burt v. Rackner , Inc. , , 451 (Minn. 2017) (quoting Zutz v. Nelson , , 61 (Minn. 2010) ).
Donald Sealock, derivatively on behalf of St. Michael Mall, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
P. 12.03, we consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Burt v. Rackner, Inc., (M inn.