Cited by

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

761 citing documents.

Matthews v. Eichorn Motors, Inc. 800 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
A genuine issue of material fact does not exist 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.
White v. Many Rivers West Ltd. Partnership 797 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
White v. Many Rivers West Ltd. Partnership 797 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Beecroft v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. 798 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Beecroft v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. 798 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Hansen v. Robert Half International, Inc. 796 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Hansen v. Robert Half International, Inc. 796 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
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 nonmoving party’s case to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” DLH
Rios v. Jennie-O Turkey Store, Inc. 793 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Rios v. Jennie-O Turkey Store, Inc. 793 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“[T]o avoid summary judgment, the nonmoving party must present 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.’ ” (quoting DLH, ).
Interstate Companies v. City of Bloomington 790 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Interstate Companies v. City of Bloomington 790 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“The district court’s function on a motion for summary judgment is not to decide issues of fact, but solely to *413 determine whether genuine factual issues exist.” DLH
Jane Doe 43C v. Diocese of New Ulm 787 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Jane Doe 43C v. Diocese of New Ulm 787 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“[T]here is no genuine issue of material fact for trial when the nonmov-ing 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
Bearder v. State 788 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Bearder v. State 788 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
No genuine issue of material fact exists when “the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” DLH, (quotation omitted); see Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 351 , (stating genuine issue must be established by “substantial evidence” or evidence sufficient to avoid a directed verdict at trial).
Driscoll v. STANDARD HARDWARE, INC. 785 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Driscoll v. STANDARD HARDWARE, INC. 785 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
GEIST-MILLER v. Mitchell 783 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
GEIST-MILLER v. Mitchell 783 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“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
MASTER BLASTER, INC. v. Dammann 781 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Presbrey v. James 781 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
MASTER BLASTER, INC. v. Dammann 781 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
No genuine issue for trial exists “[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” DLH
Presbrey v. James 781 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
But to avoid summary judgment, the non-moving party must present 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
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
A genuine issue of material fact exists “when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.”
Nelson v. Holland 776 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Nelson v. Holland 776 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club v. City of Shorewood 770 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club v. City of Shorewood 770 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
There is no genuine issue of material fact when the evidence does not “permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” DLH
Premier Bank v. Becker Development, LLC 767 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Premier Bank v. Becker Development, LLC 767 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
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
Southcross Commerce Center, LLP v. Tupy Properties, LLC 766 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Southcross Commerce Center, LLP v. Tupy Properties, LLC 766 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Hines v. Fabian 764 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Hines v. Fabian 764 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
There are no genuine issues of material fact if the “record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” DLH, (quotation omitted).
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
But 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 nonmoving party’s case to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” DLH
Look Ex Rel. Dehen v. Pact Charter School 763 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Look Ex Rel. Dehen v. Pact Charter School 763 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
No genuine issue for trial exists “ ‘[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.’ ” DLH, (quoting Matsushita Elec.
Krieger v. City of St. Paul 762 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Krieger v. City of St. Paul 762 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Barth v. Stenwick 761 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Barth v. Stenwick 761 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“No genuine issue of material fact exists when the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” DLH
Fontaine v. Steen 759 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Fontaine v. Steen 759 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Donnelly Bros. Construction Co. v. State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Co. 759 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Donnelly Bros. Construction Co. v. State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Co. 759 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Monson v. Rochester Athlectic Club 759 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Monson v. Rochester Athlectic Club 759 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported, the nonmov-ing party must ‘present specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’ ” DLH, (quoting Minn. R. Civ.
Thomas B. Olson & Associates, P.A. v. Leffert, Jay & Polglaze, P.A. 756 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2008

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by