Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Dalco Corp. v. Dixon, 338 N.W.2d 437.

29 citing documents.

Rodrigo Esparza, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
No. 1, review denied, (Minn. March 31, 1994); (affirming 3 Appellants do not challenge the district court’s determinations on the other Dahlberg factors.
Charles Smida v. Isanti Pines Tree Farm, LLC, and third party v. John F. Vande Waa, third party … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Charles Smida v. Isanti Pines Tree Farm, LLC, and third party v. John F. Vande Waa, third party … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
ing, the district court stated, “[t]he Court will take the matter under advisement and issue a written opinion.” “[I]n order to successfully oppose a motion for summary judgment a party may not rely on general statements of fact but rather must demonstrate at the time the motion is made that specific facts are in existence which create a genuine issue for trial.” (quotation omitted).
Wall v. Fairview Hospital & Healthcare Services 584 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1998
Wall v. Fairview Hospital & Healthcare Services 584 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1998
Scroggins v. Solchaga 552 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Scroggins v. Solchaga 552 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(record did not remain open after summary judgment hearing even though summary judgment ruling lacked language making judgment final).
Donaldson v. Young Women's Christian Ass'n of Duluth 526 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Donaldson v. Young Women's Christian Ass'n of Duluth 526 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(where trial court did not extend time to complete discovery or file additional documents, appellate court precluded from considering materials submitted after summary judgment hearing).
Minneapolis Federation of Teachers v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 512 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Minneapolis Federation of Teachers v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 512 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
MT Properties, Inc. v. CMC Real Estate Corp. 481 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
MT Properties, Inc. v. CMC Real Estate Corp. 481 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
see also Block v. Target Stores, Inc., (if a claim is colorable, an assessment of fees will be reversed), pet.
Midway National Bank of St. Paul v. Bollmeier 474 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 1991
Midway National Bank of St. Paul v. Bollmeier 474 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 1991
a case in which we held that a trial court may properly refuse to consider materials submitted after the hearing on a summary judgment motion when ruling on the motion.
Midway National Bank of St. Paul v. Bollmeier 462 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Midway National Bank of St. Paul v. Bollmeier 462 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Gendreau v. Foremost Insurance Co. 423 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Gendreau v. Foremost Insurance Co. 423 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Bohdan v. Alltool Mfg., Co. 411 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bohdan v. Alltool Mfg., Co. 411 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
However, the party opposing the summary judgment motion “must demonstrate at the time the motion is made that specific facts are in existence which create a genuine issue for trial.” (emphasis added)
Rehabilitation Specialists, Inc. v. Koering 404 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Rehabilitation Specialists, Inc. v. Koering 404 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Krause v. Kim 379 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Krause v. Kim 379 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
BIXLER BY BIXLER v. JC Penney Co., Inc. 376 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 1985
BIXLER BY BIXLER v. JC Penney Co., Inc. 376 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 1985
Since, on a motion for summary judgment the nonmoving party has the benefit of any doubts as to the existence of a material fact, the trial court erred in awarding summary judgment to Riegel based only on Riegel's own unsupported contentions that it did not manufacture the fabric.
Olson v. Ische 343 N.W.2d 284 Minn. 1984
Olson v. Ische 343 N.W.2d 284 Minn. 1984