Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Warren v. Dinter, 926 N.W.2d 370.

38 citing documents.

Robert E. Villanueva v. Circle K Stores Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Robert E. Villanueva v. Circle K Stores Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
–75 (Minn. 2019); Minn. R. Civ.
Daniel Francis Link, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
–75 (Minn. 2019); Minn. R. Civ.
Jacob Pries, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Senogles, d at 43, 47 – 48; –07 (Minn. 2018); Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., 629–31 (Minn. 2017).
Raymond Kvalvog, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Justin Holtzbauer, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(recognizing that “summary judgment is inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented” (quotation omitted)).
James Thomas Miller, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(stating that “summary judgment is inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different 15 conclusions from the evidence presented” (quotation omitted)).
Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Jane Doe v. Gavin Patrick Meany, Marie Olseth MD LLC d/b/a West End Consultation Group, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Jane Doe v. Gavin Patrick Meany, Marie Olseth MD LLC d/b/a West End Consultation Group, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
DECISION “We review a grant of summary judgment de novo.” d 370, 374-75 (Minn. 2019).
In re the Estate of Margaret Peteler Bush, a/k/a Margaret Bush Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Estate of Margaret Peteler Bush, a/k/a Margaret Bush Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Simon Tharek Duoth, as Trustee and Next of Kin, Taban Tharek v. Steven Mark Wood Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Simon Tharek Duoth, as Trustee and Next of Kin, Taban Tharek v. Steven Mark Wood Minn. Ct. App. 2024
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).
Susan Carol Sohn, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
First, Sohn posits that a patient -physician relationship is not always necessary to bring a medical-malpractice claim
John Joseph Wawersich, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of the Petition of: Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Barbara Henry, Minn. 2023
Court of Appeals Hudson, J. Dissenting as to Part I, Anderson, J., David Smits, as Trustee for the … Minn. 2022
d 370, 374–75 (Minn. 2019).
In re the Estate of: Richard W. Koberoski, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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
All, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re Polaris, Inc., Petitioner, Minn. 2021
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)).
City of Long Prairie, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Summary judgment is “inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” (quotation omitted).
Minn. 2021
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
Jomari E. Alexander, Sr., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Ryan Carlson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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).
Debra Sakrison, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Kati Ann Berg, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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).
Minn. 2020
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).
Michael A. Zimmer, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Melissa Casanova, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Summary judgment is “inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different c onclusions from the evid ence presented.” (quotation omitted).
Thumper Pond Resort, LLC d/b/a Thumper Pond Resort, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Warren v. Dinter , 12 Appellant produced an expert affidavit a sserting the industry-recognized duty of developers.
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.
William A. McClendon, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 370, 378 (Minn. 2019).
SRRT Properties, LP, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
the issue of foreseeability[] should be tried.”
Followed Alla K. Popovich, as wife and Guardian Ad Litem for Aleksandr M. Popovich, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019