Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60.

761 citing documents.

Catlin Underwriting Agencies, Ltd. v. ALLETE, Inc., d/b/a Minnesota Power, Schneider Electric USA, Inc., f/k/a Square D Company, … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Timothy Albert Collins v. EMC Insurance Companies Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[T]here 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
Catlin Underwriting Agencies, Ltd. v. ALLETE, Inc., d/b/a Minnesota Power, Schneider Electric USA, Inc., f/k/a Square D Company, … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
No genuine issue of material fact exists “Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” DLH, (quotation omitted).
Antler Ridge, LLC v. Citizens State Bank-Midwest, Perry Hillman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Lowell Tietz v. United Rentals (North America), Inc., General Equipment Company Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Lowell Tietz v. United Rentals (North America), Inc., General Equipment Company Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Antler Ridge, LLC v. Citizens State Bank-Midwest, Perry Hillman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
DLH, (“[T]here 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 person
Mike Weinandt v. Burl Peckman, Markit County Grain, LLC, judgment creditor, The Harris Weinandt Living Trust Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Mike Weinandt v. Burl Peckman, Markit County Grain, LLC, judgment creditor, The Harris Weinandt Living Trust Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See 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.”).
Nancy Salscheider v. Allina Health System d/b/a Allina Hospitals & Clinics Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Webb Golden Valley, LLC, Evelyn Thomson v. State of Minnesota, Global One Golden Valley, LLC, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Webb Golden Valley, LLC, Evelyn Thomson v. State of Minnesota, Global One Golden Valley, LLC, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Cf. DLH, (“[T]he party resisting summary judgment must do more than rest on mere averments.”).
Nancy Salscheider v. Allina Health System d/b/a Allina Hospitals & Clinics Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But “the party resisting summary judgment must do more than rest on mere averments.” DLH, 6
SN4, LLC v. Anchor Bank, FSB 848 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
SN4, LLC v. Anchor Bank, FSB 848 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A genuine issue of material fact does not exist “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 non-moving party’s case to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” DLH
Kalenburg v. Klein 847 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Kalenburg v. Klein 847 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
No genuine issue of fact exists “where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” DLH, (quotation omitted).
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester 846 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester 846 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
the [district] court must not weigh the evidence.” DLH
State ex rel. Swanson v. Integrity Advance, LLC 846 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State ex rel. Swanson v. Integrity Advance, LLC 846 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A genuine issue of material fact does not exist if the party opposing summary judgment merely offers evidence that “creates [only] 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
Westfield Insurane Co. v. Wensmann, Inc. 840 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Westfield Insurane Co. v. Wensmann, Inc. 840 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
A party opposing a motion for summary judgment must do more than present “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 non-moving party’s case to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” DLH
National Council on Teacher Quality v. Minnesota State Colleges & Universities 837 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
National Council on Teacher Quality v. Minnesota State Colleges & Universities 837 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Limberg v. Mitchell 834 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Limberg v. Mitchell 834 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
I. Rule 56 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure permits “a court to dispose of an action on the merits if there is no genuine dispute regarding the material facts, and a party is entitled to judgment under the law applicable to such facts.” DLH
Gallagher v. BNSF Railway Co. 829 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Gallagher v. BNSF Railway Co. 829 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“[S]ummary judgment is inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” DLH
Embree v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n 828 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Embree v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n 828 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“[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, (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 , 106 S.Ct.
Lamere v. St. Jude Medical, Inc. 827 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Lamere v. St. Jude Medical, Inc. 827 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
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 non-moving party’s case to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” DLH
McKee v. Laurion 825 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2013
McKee v. Laurion 825 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2013
No genuine issue for trial exists when “‘the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.’ ” DLH, (quoting Matsushita Elec.
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co. 825 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2013
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co. 825 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2013
A genuine issue of material fact “ ‘must be established by substantial evidence.’ ” DLH, -70 (Minn.1997) (quoting Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 351 , ).
Kellogg v. Finnegan 823 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Kellogg v. Finnegan 823 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
A genuine issue of material fact does not exist when “the nonmoving party presents evidence which merely creates a metaphy *458 sical 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
White v. City of Elk River 822 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
White v. City of Elk River 822 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
.W.2d 359, 364 (Minn.2009) (stating that "to raise a genuine issue of material fact the nonmoving party must present more than 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 nonmov-ing party’s case to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions' ”) (quoting DLH, ).
Kastning v. State Farm Insurance Companies 821 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Kastning v. State Farm Insurance Companies 821 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
party’s case to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” DLH
Baker v. Best Buy Stores, LP 812 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Baker v. Best Buy Stores, LP 812 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
See DLH, (stating that the federal rules are instructive on interpreting the Minnesota rules, especially when “the relevant language of the state and federal rules is identical”).
In re Welfare of J.W. 807 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re Welfare of J.W. 807 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
See DLH, -71 (Minn.1997) (interpreting Minn. R. Civ.
Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co. 802 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co. 802 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Matthews v. Eichorn Motors, Inc. 800 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 2011

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by