Cited by

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

170 citing documents.

Jarvis & Sons, Inc. v. INTERNATIONAL MARINE UNDERWRITERS 768 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Jarvis & Sons, Inc. v. INTERNATIONAL MARINE UNDERWRITERS 768 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Lopez 764 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Lopez 764 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
O’ (holding the district court’s application of statutory criteria to facts as found is a question of law subject to de novo review).
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord's, Inc. 764 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 2009
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord's, Inc. 764 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 2009
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe 755 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe 755 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Carlson v. Allstate Insurance Co. 749 N.W.2d 41 Minn. 2008
Carlson v. Allstate Insurance Co. 749 N.W.2d 41 Minn. 2008
Evelyn I. Rechtzigel Trust Ex Rel. Rechtzigel v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co. of New York 748 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Evelyn I. Rechtzigel Trust Ex Rel. Rechtzigel v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co. of New York 748 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In reviewing the record for the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, we view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” O’
Marchio v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 747 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Marchio v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 747 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Johnson 743 N.W.2d 622 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Johnson 743 N.W.2d 622 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Bjerke v. Johnson 742 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2007
Bjerke v. Johnson 742 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2007
In reviewing the record for the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, we view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” O’
In Re the Welfare of S.H.H. 741 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of S.H.H. 741 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
O’ (stating that the application of a statute to undisputed facts is a question of law); (recognizing that the application of statutory criteria to facts as found by the district court is subject to de novo review).
Uckun v. Minnesota State Board of Medical Practice 733 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Uckun v. Minnesota State Board of Medical Practice 733 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Jensen v. Fhima 731 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Jensen v. Fhima 731 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Revocable Trust of Margolis 731 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Revocable Trust of Margolis 731 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Roemhildt v. Gresser Companies, Inc. 729 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2007
Roemhildt v. Gresser Companies, Inc. 729 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2007
We reaffirmed this “even-handed approach” in O’ (“We hold that the even-handed standard is the correct standard to apply in determining questions of law under the Act.
State v. Perry 725 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Perry 725 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Brookfield Trade Ctr., see also O’ (noting that application of a statute to the undisputed facts of a ease involves a question of law, and the district court’s decision is not binding on this court).
In Re the Estate of Barg 722 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Estate of Barg 722 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Lee v. Fresenius Medical Care, Inc. 719 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Lee v. Fresenius Medical Care, Inc. 719 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
TCM PROPERTIES, LLC v. Gunderson 720 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
TCM PROPERTIES, LLC v. Gunderson 720 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Rush v. Jostock 710 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Rush v. Jostock 710 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Brookfield Trade Ctr., O’
Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC 705 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2005
Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC 705 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2005
Laska v. Anoka County 696 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Laska v. Anoka County 696 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Carlson v. Friday 694 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Carlson v. Friday 694 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Meintsma v. Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. 684 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 2004
Meintsma v. Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. 684 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 2004
American Family Insurance Group v. Kiess 680 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
American Family Insurance Group v. Kiess 680 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Brookfield Trade Ctr., O’