Cited by

See Hoyt Props., Inc., d at 320; (recognizing that “summary judgment is inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented” (quotation omitted)).

–75 (Minn. 2019); Minn. R. Civ.

–75 (Minn. 2019); Minn. R. Civ.

See Senogles, d at 43, 47 – 48; –07 (Minn. 2018); Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., 629–31 (Minn. 2017).

(recognizing that “summary judgment is inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented” (quotation omitted)).

(stating that “summary judgment is inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different 15 conclusions from the evidence presented” (quotation omitted)).

DECISION “We review a grant of summary judgment de novo.” d 370, 374-75 (Minn. 2019).

DECISION 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.” (quotation omitted).

First, Sohn posits that a patient -physician relationship is not always necessary to bring a medical-malpractice claim

d 370, 374–75 (Minn. 2019).

Summary judgment should not be granted when reasonable persons could draw different conclusions 6 from the evidence presented, Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc. , or when there are differing reasonable inferences from undisputed facts

As a matter of stare decisis, “we are ‘extremely reluctant’ to overturn our precedent and ‘require a compelling reason to do so.’ ” d 288, 292 n.1 (Minn. 2020) (quoting Warren v. Dinter , n.7 (Minn. 2019)).

Summary judgment is “inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” (quotation omitted).

See Warren v. Dinter , (emphasizing the summary judgment standard when resolving a duty of care issue in a professional negligence case); d 195, 206–07 (Minn. 2018) (highlighting the significance of procedural posture when deciding “a close 10 call” on an appeal from a grant of

DECISION 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.” (quotation omitted).

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.” (quotation omitted).

Under the principles of stare decisis, we are “extremely reluctant” to overturn our precedent and “require a compelling reason to do so.” n.7 (Minn. 2019) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Summary judgment is “inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different c onclusions from the evid ence presented.” (quotation omitted).

See Warren v. Dinter , 12 Appellant produced an expert affidavit a sserting the industry-recognized duty of developers.

“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.

d 370, 378 (Minn. 2019).

the issue of foreseeability[] should be tried.”