Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Star Centers, Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., 644 N.W.2d 72.

555 citing documents.

George Mentonis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
4 The evidence is viewed “in th e light most favorable to th e party against whom summary judgment was granted.” STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P.
Capital One Bank (USA), NA, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the [nonmovant].” STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., -77 (Minn. 2002) (citations omitted).
Robert L. Meller, Jr., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P ., -77 (Minn. 2002).
Phillip Musselman, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In reviewing a district court’s summary -judgment determination, we consider the evidence “ in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., -77 (Minn. 2002) (citations omitted).
Ola Abdelaziz, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Appellate courts “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” See STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P.
Samson Longtin, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-77 (Minn. 2002) (citations omitted).
Carnea Roberson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
On appeal from summary judgment, we review de novo “whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., –77 (Minn. 2002).
David Timp, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“On appeal from summary judgment, we review whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and wh ether the district court erred in its application of the law.” STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P.
Karmen Michelle Ingersoll, as Trustee for the next of kin of Thomas Wade Ingersoll, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., –77 (Minn. 2002) (citations omitted).
Minnkota Architectural Products Co., Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“On appeal from summary judgment, we review whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., (citation omitted).
Mary Ellen Spinler, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P.
H. Joseph Slater, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Larry E. Reed, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
[This court] view[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L .L.P., -77 (Minn. 2002).
North Mill Equipment Finance, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We view the evidence in the “light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & 11 Benson, L.L.P., -77 (M inn.
Patti Lang, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., -77 (Minn. 2002) (citations omitted).
Robert Grado, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In doing so, we “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., -77 (Minn. 2002).
Jeffrey J. Boelter, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, LLP, –77 (Minn. 2002).
Paul Stepnes, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., -77 (Minn. 2002).
John Mullaney, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., -77 (Min n. 2002).
Catherine Jordan, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., -77 (Minn. 2002).
TMT Management Group, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
R&S Crossing, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., -77 (Minn. 2002).
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 72, 76-77 (Minn. 2002).
Linda Gensmer, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Thomas Sendecky, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Gust G. Johanson, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See STARS Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P.
King’s Cove Marina, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P.
Calm Waters, LLC, a Limited Liability Company under the laws of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., – 77 (Minn. 2002).
Affordable Home Builders, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A re viewing court views the evidence “in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., -77 (Minn. 2002).
Cannon Falls Mall Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Appellate courts “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” See STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., -77 (Minn. 2002).
Thomas R. Blanck, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., (citations omitted).
Andrew Geist, individually and as parent and natural guardian of minor, T.G., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., -77 (Minn. 2002).
In the Matter of Virginia Marie Carlson, Unlicensed. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., -77 (Minn. 2002).
In the Matter of the Bette R. Peterson Revocable Trust, Dated August 8, 1996, as Amended, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., -77 (Minn. 2002).
James M. Erickson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Bradley Wingate, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., -77 (Minn. 2002).
Moore v. City of New Brighton 932 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Moore v. City of New Brighton 932 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
James Briks, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., -77 (Minn. 2002).
Axia Contracting, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In doing so, we “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., -77 (Minn. 2002).
County of Sherburne, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Donna Delfino, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., -77 (Minn. 2002).
Kevin Scott Karsjens, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
STAR Centers, Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P .
In re the Matter of Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee for Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., -77 (Minn. 2002).
Wise v. Stonebridge Cmtys., LLC 927 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Wise v. Stonebridge Cmtys., LLC 927 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Cilek v. Office of the Minn. Sec'y of State 927 N.W.2d 327 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Cilek v. Office of the Minn. Sec'y of State 927 N.W.2d 327 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
BFI Waste Sys. of N. Am., LLC v. Bishop 927 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
BFI Waste Sys. of N. Am., LLC v. Bishop 927 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Richard Pomije, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-77 (Minn. 2 As part of the counterclaims, Digitaltown asserts that Pomije breached his duty of loyalty by usurping corporate opportunities because Digitaltown had an opportunity to sell stock directly to buyers interested in investing in the company, but Pomije ins

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by