Cited by

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).

There is no genuine issue of material fact when “the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” DLH, (quotation omitted).

A genuine issue of material fact exists “when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” DLH, (Minn. satisfy any judgment obtained from the nonsettling defendants to the extent the settling defendants have been released.

Senogles, d at 42; DLH, (“[T]he function of the district court on a motion for summary judgment is to not weigh the evidence.”).

But if the moving party supports its motion, then “the nonmoving party must present specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” DLH, (quotation omitted).

v. Bugge, (quotation omitted); see also DLH, (“[T]he party resisting summary judgment must do more than rest on mere averments.”).

As the nonmoving party on summary judgment, Erdmann bore the “burden of alleging specific facts supporting [her] affirmative defenses.” d 17 889, 895 (Minn. App. 1985); see also DLH, (stating that “when 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, d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997).

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

A genuine issue of material fact exists “when reasonable persons might draw 11 different conclusions from the evidence presented.” DLH

Even so, the nonmoving party must “do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” DLH, Inc. v. Russ , (quotation omitted).

DLH, d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997).

(quoting DLH, -71 (Minn. 1997)).

There is no genuine issue of material fact “where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” DLH, (quotation omitted).

To avoid summary judgment, the nonmoving party must present sufficient evidence “to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions” and create more than “a metaphysical doubt as to the factual issue.” DLH

See DLH, (“The district court’s function on a motion for summary judgment is not to decide issues of fact .

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

Conversion “is defined as an act of willful interference with personal property, done without lawful justification by which any person entitled thereto is deprived of use and possession.” DLH, (quotation omitted).

s a matter of law when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.” see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (“[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.”); DLH, (“[N]o genuine issue of material fact for trial [exists] when the nonmoving party presents evidence which merely creates a metaphysical doubt as to a factual issue .

to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.’ ” Kelly for Washburn v. Kraemer Constr., Inc., d 504, 508 (Minn. 2017) (alteration in original) (quoting DLH, ).

A genuine issue of material f act exists “when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” DLH, d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997).

Alternatively, she suggests that we apply the de novo standard used to review a judgment on the pleadings under rule 12.03 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, see D.L.H., or, if matters outside the pleadings are considered, the de novo standard used to review a summary judgment, see Day Masonry v. Indep.

P. 56.05; DLH, Inc. v. Russ , .

Fact issues exist “when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” DLH

“We do not weigh facts or determine the credibility of affidavits and other evidence.” Stringer, d at 754 (citing DLH, ).

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

DLH, (holding summary judgment is inappropriate if there exists a genuine issue of material fact).

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

Because the district court had gran ted summary judgment to the city on this claim, the issue before the supreme court was “whether genuine issues of material fact exist[ed] and the district court correctly applied the [law].” Id., (citing DLH, ).

See DLH, (requi ring the nonmoving party to respond to a summary-judgment motion with specific facts).