Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Engstrom v. Whitebirch, Inc., 931 N.W.2d 786.

25 citing documents.

State of Minnesota Office of the Attorney General v. Madison Equities, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Engstrom v. Whitebirch, Inc.
Bruce Westman v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Rather, he argues that he “was injured by [SLS’s] notice of intent to foreclose and demands for usurious interest” because they forced him “to retain counsel to defend his real estate.” He asserts that his “attorney fees are the natural consequence of SLS’s actions.” To support his argument, Westman relies on Engstrom v. Whitebirch, Inc.
Lakecia Gant, as trustee for the next-of-kin of Raven Bianca Gant, deceased v. Daniel Ledman, in his individual … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Lakecia Gant, as trustee for the next-of-kin of Raven Bianca Gant, deceased v. Daniel Ledman, in his individual … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In doing so, we accept the complaint’s alleged facts as true and construe “all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Engstrom v. Whitebirch, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Doug Hoskin v. Josh Krsnak, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Doug Hoskin v. Josh Krsnak, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
On review, an appellate court must “accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Engstrom v. Whitebirch, Inc.
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Joint Revocable Trust Agreement of John N. Charais and Sveindis Charais, … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Joint Revocable Trust Agreement of John N. Charais and Sveindis Charais, … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Appellate courts “accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Engstrom v. Whitebirch, Inc., d 786, 790 (Minn. 2019).
Nanette Brooks, et al., parents and natural guardians of minor A.B. v. Tracy Crudo individually, and as parent … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Nanette Brooks, et al., parents and natural guardians of minor A.B. v. Tracy Crudo individually, and as parent … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
DECISION We review a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo and must “accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Engstrom v. Whitebirch, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Section 21 Southeast, LLC v. Seiffert Farm L.L.C., a Minnesota Limited Liability Company, Jeffery Seiffert, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In reviewing a district court’s decision to dismiss claims under rule 12.02(e), an appellate court considers de novo whether the pleading “sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Walsh, d at 606; see also Engstrom v. Whitebirch, Inc., d 786, 790 (Minn. 2019).
Edgard Mariano v. Raiser, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2023
” Walsh, d at 606; see also Engstrom v. Whitebirch, Inc.
Eugene C. Banks v. Dakota County Board of Commissioners, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Eugene C. Banks v. Dakota County Board of Commissioners, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“When reviewing whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted [under rule 12.02(e)], [the appellate court] must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Engstrom v. Whitebirch, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Thomas Anthony Greshowak, et al v. Adam Paul Greshowak, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
This court denied the motion and deferred to the panel “the issue of how this court should address appellants’ constitutional challenge in light of the untimely notice on the attorney general.” DECISION I. “The sole question on appeal” from a rule 12.02(e) dismissal “is whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” (quotation omitted).
Dynamic Energy Solutions, LLC v. Danna, LLC, d/b/a Catalyst Modern Energy, FK Construction Funding, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In reviewing a district court’s decision to dismiss claims under rule 12.02(e), the appellate court considers de novo whether the pleading “sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Walsh, d at 606; see also Engstrom v. Whitebirch, Inc., d 786, 790 (Minn. 2019).
Troy K. Scheffler v. Brian Richard Helget, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
[,] accept[ing] the facts alleged in the complaint as true and constru[ing] all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., (citation omitted); see also Engstrom v. Whitebirch, Inc.
Daniel J. Engstrom v. Whitebirch Inc., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
10, 2018), rev’d, and the supreme court’s decision in Engstrom v. Whitebirch, Inc.
Stephen Svendsen v. William Lobb, et al., Woodland Baptist Church, Darrell R. Friar, Minnesota Association of Regular Baptist … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
4 “The sole question on appeal” from a rule 12.02(e) dismissal “is whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Engstrom v. Whitebirch, Inc., 0 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).
Raymond L. Semler v. Jodi Harpstead, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
P. 12.02(e) for failure “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, [appellate courts] must ‘accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.’” Engstrom v. Whitebirch, Inc., (quoting Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., ).
Terance Simmons v. Judge Jamie L. Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“We review de novo whether a complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., see also Engstrom v. Whitebirch, Inc.
A21-1528 A21-1530 William Findling, et al v. Group Health Plan, Inc., d/b/a Health Partners and Regions Hospital (A21-1518), … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
It is true that the private attorney general provision applies “only to those claimants who demonstrate tha t their cause of action benefits the public.” Nystrom, d at 314 (declining to apply the private attorney general provision to a one-on-one transaction); see also Engstrom v. Whitebirch, Inc., n.5 (Minn. 2019) (stating that “[i]n addition to proving injury from the violations, plaintiffs who bring claims under the [private attorney general provision] must also demonstrate that their cause o
Penelope Isleman, et al v. Public Storage Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Engstrom v. Whitebirch, Inc., n.5 (Minn. 2019) (“In addition to proving injury from the violations, plaintiffs who bring claims under the private attorney general statute must also “demonstrate that their cause of action benefits the public.”) Thus, the futility of appellant’s proposed claim also warrants the district court’s denial of t
Sara Corinne Kysylyczyn v. Teresa MacNabb, John Michael Kysylyczyn Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Engstrom v. Whitebirch, Inc.
Wayne P. Steffens v. State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Engstrom v. Whitebirch, Inc.