Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Swanlund v. Shimano Indus. Corp., Ltd., 459 N.W.2d 151.

28 citing documents.

A24-0715 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Corp., (applying de novo standard of review in pretrial discretionary appeal to denial of motion to amend to add punitive-damages claim), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
Ridgewood Bay Resort, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(where this court considered only evidence presented by the appellant to establish that appellant met the prima -facie-evidence standard in a claim for punitive damages).
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J. A. R.-A., Father. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Carney Lien, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Corp. LTD., (Minn. App .
Peter J. Andersen, Sr., as Trustee for the Peter J. Andersen, Sr. Family Trust, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 895 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 895 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
Corp., ) (internal quotation marks omitted).
J.K., a minor, by and through K. Kimball, as parent and natural guardian, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Corp. , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Jacob Brown, a minor, by his legal guardian Megan Brown v. Duluth Steam Cooperative Association Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jacob Brown, a minor, by his legal guardian Megan Brown v. Duluth Steam Cooperative Association Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Corp., Ltd., review denied (Minn. Oct.
Wallace Armstrong v. Hasbargen Logging, Inc., State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Wallace Armstrong v. Hasbargen Logging, Inc., State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Corp., Ltd., (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Arthur Allen Hogenson v. Michael W. Hogenson 852 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Arthur Allen Hogenson v. Michael W. Hogenson 852 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Corp. Ltd., (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Limberg v. Mitchell 834 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Limberg v. Mitchell 834 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Corp., (declaring that in ruling upon a summary judgment motion, the trial court must consider the substantive evidentiary burden and whether “ ‘a jury could reasonably find either that the plaintiff proved his case by the quality and quantity of evidence required by the governing law or that he did not’
JW Ex Rel. BRW v. 287 INTER. DIST. 761 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
J.W. ex rel. B.R.W. v. 287 Intermediate District 761 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
JW Ex Rel. BRW v. 287 INTER. DIST. 761 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Corp., review denied (Minn. Oct.
J.W. ex rel. B.R.W. v. 287 Intermediate District 761 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Corp., review denied (Minn. Oct.
Marchant Investment & Management Co. v. St. Anthony West Neighborhood Organization, Inc. 694 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Marchant Investment & Management Co. v. St. Anthony West Neighborhood Organization, Inc. 694 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Corp., (stating that clear and convincing standard requires court to view evidence “through the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden” (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Thompson v. Hughart 664 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Thompson v. Hughart 664 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Corp., review denied (Minn. Oct.
Special Force Ministries v. WCCO Television 584 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Special Force Ministries v. WCCO Television 584 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Corp., (on motion to amend to plead punitive damages, party must offer evidence which, if unrebutted, would constitute clear and convincing evidence of willful indifference), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Marriage of Ross v. Ross 477 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Ross v. Ross 477 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Corp., (de novo review of trial court’s refusal to amend complaint to add a claim for punitive damages), pet.