Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite O'MALLEY v. Ulland Bros., 549 N.W.2d 889.

170 citing documents.

In the Matter of a Public Safety Officer Death Benefit for Eric William Groebner (Deceased) Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See O’ (“A fact is material if its resolution will affect the outcome of a case.”).
Michael Walker v. State of Minnesota Department of Corrections Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Board of Directors, Colony by the Greens Townhome Association v. Jackie Santopietro Minn. Ct. App. 2023
O ’Malley v. Ulland Bros .
Kristie Kollmann, et al v. Joseph M. Garding, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A factual dispute is material for summary -judgment purposes “if its resolution will affect the outcome of [the] case.” O’Malley v. Ulland Bros ., d 889, 892 (Minn. 1996) (citation omitted ).
Thomas Shimota, B&T Automotive, Inc., et al v. Klemp & Stanton, PLLP, et al., Estate of Robert Shimota, … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See O’d 889, 892 (Minn. 1996) (“A fact is material if its resolution will affect the outcome of a case.”).
Teresa M. Hintze, et al v. Karen A. Hoese, et al., Chad Harwood, et al., Dale W. Hoese, … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Janet C. Dreyer, et al v. Reierson Construction, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Appellants note that they “provided detailed descriptions of their personal and real property losses due to the alleged negligence of [r]espondent” and state that appellants “have the right to testify to their damages.” “A fact is material if its resolution will affect the outcome of a case.” O’
Victor H. Arteaga, et al v. Rihm Kenworth, PACCAR Financial Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Mariam Aromashodu v. Swarovski North America Limited, et al., Airport Retail Group, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Katie Howard, et al v. Sun Trust Financial LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Michael Bartell v. Tara Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Donnelly Agency, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Viroment USA, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
O’d 889, 892 (Minn. 1996).
Arthur Township v. Donald Sauve, Haley Sauve Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Lighthouse Management Inc. v. Oberg Family Farms, et al., American Federal Bank, Gateway Building Systems, Inc., CITYWide Electric, … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
O’Malley v. Ulland Bros. , d 889, 892 (Minn. 1996).
City of Cambridge v. One Love Housing, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Kathleen Corte v. Matthew Jon Larson, Kylie Rodgers Special Needs Trust Minn. Ct. App. 2021
O’Malley v. Ulland Bros.
Robert Grado v. Integrated Office Solutions Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A fact is ma terial if its resolution will a ffect the outcome of a case.” O’Malley v. Ulland Bros.
State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation, Minn. 2020
In the Matter of the Bette R. Peterson Revocable Trust, Dated August 8, 1996, as Amended, In the … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
And a material fact is one whose “resolution wil l affect the outcome of a case.” O’Malley v. Ulland Bros.
County of Sherburne v. Steven D. Weese, vs. County of Sherburne, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
And a material fact is one whose “resol ution will affect the outcome of the case.” O’
Carol Vanerka Stephens v. Stephen Stephens Minn. Ct. App. 2019
O’Malley v. Ulland Bros.
Bremer Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Matejcek 916 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bremer Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Matejcek 916 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
O'Malley v. Ulland Bros. , , 892 (Minn. 1996).
Kelly ex rel. Washburn v. Kraemer Construction, Inc. 896 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2017
Kelly ex rel. Washburn v. Kraemer Construction, Inc. 896 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2017
Jessica Kelly, as Trustee for the heirs and next-of-kin of Richard Roy Washburn, Deceased v. Kraemer Construction, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jessica Kelly, as Trustee for the heirs and next-of-kin of Richard Roy Washburn, Deceased v. Kraemer Construction, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael Barlow v. Hospitality Center for Chinese, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael Barlow v. Hospitality Center for Chinese, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A fact is material if its resolution will affect the outcome of a case.” O’
James L. Mandel v. Multiband Corporation, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James L. Mandel v. Multiband Corporation, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See DLH, d at 71; O’ (noting that a fact is material only “if its resolution will affect the outcome of a case”).
Richard J. Hartfiel v. Raymond Wilburn Allison, T. J. Potter Trucking, Inc., Westfield Insurance Company, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Richard J. Hartfiel v. Raymond Wilburn Allison, T. J. Potter Trucking, Inc., Westfield Insurance Company, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
7 will affect the outcome of a case.” O’
James M. Johnson, et al v. Princeton Public Utilities Commission and third party plaintiff, vs. Hydrocon, Inc., Third … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James M. Johnson, et al v. Princeton Public Utilities Commission and third party plaintiff, vs. Hydrocon, Inc., Third … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
David L. Henson as Trustee for the Estate of Maxwell David Henson, et al v. Uptown Drink, LLC … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
David L. Henson as Trustee for the Estate of Maxwell David Henson, et al v. Uptown Drink, LLC … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The current directive requires us to construe the act in a “nondiscriminatory fashion.” See O’
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester, First Transit, Inc. 868 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester, First Transit, Inc. 868 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
A fact is material “if its resolution will affect the outcome of a case.” O’
Chad Schirmers v. County of Anoka Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Chad Schirmers v. County of Anoka Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Douglas Speltz, et al v. Interplastic Corporation and third party plaintiff, vs. Egan Company Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Douglas Speltz, et al v. Interplastic Corporation and third party plaintiff, vs. Egan Company Minn. Ct. App. 2014
O’ (concluding that two employers engaged on same project when they “shared equipment, assisted in hauling for each other, coordinated the work flow by sending messages through each other, prepared road surfaces for each other by blading or watering, and assisted each other in extricating vehicles s
LeDoux v. M.A. Mortenson Co. 835 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
LeDoux v. M.A. Mortenson Co. 835 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
The common-enterprise doctrine applies only when “the masters have joined forces and in effect have put the servants into a common pool.” O’ (quotation omitted).
Anderson v. Frontier Communications 819 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 2012
State v. Lopez 778 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2010
State v. Lopez 778 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2010
a matter of law that we review de novo.”); O’ (noting that the application of a statute to undisputed facts is reviewed de novo).
Gores v. Schultz 777 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Gores v. Schultz 777 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
see O’ (stating that the application of a statute to undisputed facts is a question of law).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by