Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Carlisle Ex Rel. Scott v. City of Minneapolis, 437 N.W.2d 712.

41 citing documents.

Magnifi Financial Credit Union, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A party “must present 7 affirmative evidence in order to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment.” Minn. R. Civ.
Steven D. Woodke, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Once the moving party has established that summary judgment is appropriate, it is not enough for the opposing party to “simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Carlisle v. City of Minneapolis
Northern States Power Company, Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, Aegis Insurance Services, LTD., and other interested insurers as … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Mark Sharockman v. LifeSpan of Minnesota, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mark Sharockman v. LifeSpan of Minnesota, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
nnot rely upon speculation to demonstrate the existence of a genuine fact issue,” and “a party opposing summary judgment must do more than show that there is a metaphysical doubt as to material facts.” -41 (Minn. App. 1992) (citing Fownes v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 302 Minn. 471, 474, ).
Kay Tellinghuisen v. Chrysler Group, LLC, a foreign limited liability company transacting business in the State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Kay Tellinghuisen v. Chrysler Group, LLC, a foreign limited liability company transacting business in the State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 712, 715 (Minn. App. 1989) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552-53 (1986)).
Mountain Peaks Financial Services, Inc. v. Roth-Steffen 778 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Mountain Peaks Financial Services, Inc. v. Roth-Steffen 778 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
To defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment, a nonmoving party must offer significant probative evidence; “discredited testimony is not normally considered a sufficient basis for drawing a contrary conclusion.”
Horton v. Township of Helen 624 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Horton v. Township of Helen 624 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
*594 To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the “nonmoving party must offer significant probative evidence tending to support its complaint.” (citation omitted).
Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortgage Banking 605 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortgage Banking 605 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
DLH, Inc. v. Russ 566 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1997
DLH, Inc. v. Russ 566 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1997
15, 1992); (citing Liberty Lobby for the proposition that the summary judgment standard "mirrors” or “is very close to" the directed verdict standard); pet.
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Metropolitan Urology Clinic, P.A. 537 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Metropolitan Urology Clinic, P.A. 537 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Lloyd v. in Home Health, Inc. 523 N.W.2d 2 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Lloyd v. in Home Health, Inc. 523 N.W.2d 2 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 , 106 S.Ct.
Albert v. Paper Calmenson & Co. 515 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Albert v. Paper Calmenson & Co. 515 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
2505, 2511 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)
Maras v. City of Brainerd 502 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Maras v. City of Brainerd 502 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(when decedent lunged at police officer, decedent’s head inadvertently impacted with the muzzle of the officer’s shotgun, causing it to fire and kill him and there was no evidence the officer intentionally discharged the shotgun).
Peterson v. Colonial Insurance of California 493 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Peterson v. Colonial Insurance of California 493 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Vang v. Vang 490 N.W.2d 647 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Vang v. Vang 490 N.W.2d 647 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Wagner v. Schwegmann's South Town Liquor, Inc. 485 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Wagner v. Schwegmann's South Town Liquor, Inc. 485 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Johnson v. Van Blaricom 480 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Johnson v. Van Blaricom 480 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Carlson v. Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. 475 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Carlson v. Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. 475 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
(quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 , 106 S.Ct.
Acrometal Companies, Inc. v. First American Bank of Brainerd 475 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Acrometal Companies, Inc. v. First American Bank of Brainerd 475 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Menard, Inc. v. King De Son, Co., Ltd. 467 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Menard, Inc. v. King De Son, Co., Ltd. 467 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Goward v. City of Minneapolis 456 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Goward v. City of Minneapolis 456 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
2548, 2552-53 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)
Shuman v. University of Minnesota Law School 451 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Shuman v. University of Minnesota Law School 451 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256-57 , 106 S.Ct.