Cited by

phone call from a seller stating that they are considering selling their “private lake.” Needless to say, I get excited about every potential listing but I couldn’t find out more details about this one fast 1 “The district court’s function on a motion for summary judgment is not to decide issues of fact, but solely to determine whether genuine factual issues exist.” DLH, Inc. v. Russ

“[W]hen determining whether a genuine issue of material fact for trial exists, the court is not required to ignore its conclusion that a particular piece of evidence may have no probative value, such that reasonable persons could not draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” DLH

This is neither a “ mere averment” in the pleadings, nor “evidence which merely creates a metaphysical doubt as to a factual issue,” see DLH

But “there is no genuine issue of material fact for trial when the nonmoving party presents evidence which merely creates a metaphysical doubt as to a factual issue and which is not sufficiently probative with respect to an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” DLH

of Minn., LLC, d 771, 778 (Minn. App. 2024) (quoting DLH, ), rev. denied (Minn. July 23, 2024).

When deciding a summary-judgment motion, the district court “must not weigh the evidence,” DLH, because the district court’s role is not “to decide issues of fact but solely to determine whether” genuine fact issues exist

A genuine issue of material fact exists “when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” DLH

DLH, (stating that on a motion for summary judgment a district court “is not to decide issues of fact,” nor should it “weigh the evidence”).

” DLH, (quotation omitted).

⁠No genuine issue of material fact exists “when the nonmoving party presents evidence which merely creates a metaphysical doubt as to a factual issue and which is not sufficiently probative with respect to an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” DLH

See DLH, (“[T]he party resisting summary judgment must do more than rest on mere averments.”).

Co., see also DLH, 72 (Minn. 1997).

It is not designed to afford a substitute for a trial where there are issues to be determined.”); see also DLH, d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997) (noting that summary judgment allows “a court to dispose of an action on the merits”); cf. State Farm Ins.

(noting that a reporter is acting in good faith even if the reporter exercises bad judgment); see also DLH, d 60, 71 (Minn. 1997) (stating that it is not sufficient for the nonmoving party to rely on “evidence which merely creates a metaphysical doubt as to a factual issue”).

“[T]he nonmoving party ‘must do more than rest on mere averments’ to create a genuine issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment.” Hagen, d at 172 (quoting DLH, -71 (Minn. 1997)).

consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion”); see also DLH, (stating that “the party resisting summary judgment must do more than rest on mere averments”).

Co., (emphasis added) (quotations, brackets, and citations omitted); see also DLH

which is not sufficiently probative with respect to an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” DLH

“[W]hen the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof on an element essential to the nonmoving party’s case, the nonmoving party must make a showing sufficient to establish that essential element.” DLH, Inc. v. Russ , (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986)).

6 To preclude summary judgment, “[a] genuine issue of material fact ‘must be established by substantial evidence.’” McBee v. Team Indus., Inc., (quoting DLH, -70 (Minn. 1997)).

To create a genuine issue of material fact, a nonmoving party must submit evidence that is “sufficiently probative with respect to an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” DLH

“[W]hen the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof on an element essential to the nonmoving party’s case, the nonmoving party must make a showing sufficient to establish that essential element.” DLH, Inc. v. Russ , (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986)).

Grp., LLC, (noting that “[w]eighing the evidence and assessing credibility on summary judgment is error”); DLH, (ca utioning that district court “must not weigh the evidence on a motion for summary judgment”).

But “the nonmoving party ‘must do more than rest on mere averments’ to create a genuine issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment.” Hagen, d at 172 (quoting DLH, -71 (Minn. 1997)).

egations or by postulating evidence that might be developed at trial.” d 666, 672 (Minn. 2001); see also Wendell v. Comm’r of Revenue, d 405, 413 (Minn. 2024) (stating that to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party “must do more than rest on mere averments” (quotation omitted)); DLH, 5 (stating that it is not sufficient for the nonmoving party to rely on “evidence which merely creates a metaphysical doubt as to a factual issue”).

A genuine issue of material fact exists “when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” DLH

6 probative with respect to an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” DLH

of Minn., LLC, d 771, 778 (Minn. App. 2024) (quoting DLH, ), rev. denied (Minn. July 23, 2024).