Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite U. S. Bank National Association, as trustee, successor-in-interest to Bank of America, N.…, 888 N.W.2d 699.

15 citing documents.

Corey Smith, a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Michael L. Weiner v. Sea Life Minnesota, … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
This court applies an abuse-of- discretion standard of review to a district court’s denial of a motion to amend a complaint, but if “a district court denies a motion to amend on the ground of futility, our review of the district court’s ruling may turn on whether it was correct in an underlying legal ruling.” U.S. Bank NA v. RBP Realty, LL C, (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Julie Massaquoi, et al v. Abe Al-Qudeh Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Julie Massaquoi, et al v. Abe Al-Qudeh Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“A plaintiff may not amend the complaint if the proposed amendment would be futile because it would serve no useful purpose.” U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. RBP Realty, LLC, rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Aaron Olson v. Matthew Joseph Freeman, et al., Kappa Sigma 5th Street Brothers, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. RBP Realty, LLC, (stating a party “may not amend the complaint if the proposed amendment would be futile because it would serve no useful purpose”), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Sherrie Ann Williams v. Midwest Bonding Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Sherrie Ann Williams v. Midwest Bonding Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. RBP Realty, LLC, (“A plaintiff may not amend the complaint if the proposed amendment would be futile because it would serve no useful purpose.”), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Larry Walters, et al v. Kyle Stromstad, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A district court need not permit an amendment that “would be futile because it would serve no useful purpose.” U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. RBP Realty, LLC, d 699, 705 (Minn. App. 2016), rev. denied (Apr.
Serene E. Warren, as beneficiary of the 2011 Arizona NG Trust 102, 8008 Meadow Trust 102, 2011 Lafayette … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
But a party “may not amend the complaint if the proposed amendment would be futile because it would serve no useful purpose.” U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. RBP Realty, LLC, rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Jacob Becker, et al v. Mark A. Steinhauser, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
After a responsive pleading has been served, “[a] plaintiff may not amend the complaint if the proposed amendment would be futile because it would serve no useful purpose.” U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. RBP Realty, LLC, rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Christopher Villella v. Patrick Villella, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
For example, “[a] plaintiff may not amend the complaint if the proposed amendment would be futile because it would serve no useful purpose.” U.S. Bank Nat’l 17 Ass’n v. RBP Realty, LLC, rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota by Peters Sunset Beach, Inc., et al v. Pope County Minn. Ct. App. 2024
But “[a] plaintiff may not amend the complaint if the proposed amendment would be futile because it would serve no useful purpose.” U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. RBP Realty, LLC, d 699, 705 (Minn. App. 2016), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Mark Krampf v. University of Minnesota, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
8 DECISION I. Denial of Krampf’s Motion to Amend the Complaint “After a responsive pleading has been served, a plaintiff may amend the complaint ‘only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party,’ and ‘leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.’” U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. RBP Realty, LLC , d 699, 705 (Minn. App. 2016) (quoting Minn. R. Civ.
Dr. Eric Ringsred v. City of Duluth, et al., Duluth News Tribune, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Denial is also appropriate “if the proposed amendment would be futile because it would serve no useful purpose.” U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. RBP Realty, LLC, see Hunt v. Univ.
William Hansen d/b/a W.G. Hansen & Associates v. Teleplus Consulting, Inc., and William G. Hansen, vs. David E. … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. RBP Realty , review denied (Minn. Apr.
Abdiaziz H. Hirsi v. ARCH Language Network, Inc. d/b/a ARCH Language, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See U.S. Bank Nat’l A ss’n v. RBP Realty, LLC , (“If a district court denies a motion to amend on the ground of futility, our review of t he district court’s ruling m ay turn on whether it was correct in an underlying legal ruling.” (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. Apr.