Cited by

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

765 citing documents.

Brandon Grim v. City of Zumbro Falls Minn. Ct. App. 2022
City of Shorewood v. Guy Gerald Sanschagrin, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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).
Landmark Community Bank, N.A., now doing business as Flagship Bank Minnesota v. James L. Lang Minn. Ct. App. 2022
DLH, d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997).
Mark D. Island, et al v. Jason D. Ferguson, Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A genuine issue of material fact exists “when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” DLH, Inc. v. Russ
Merchant & Gould P.C. v. Larry Holmberg Minn. Ct. App. 2022
.” DLH, Inc. v. Russ , (Mi nn.
Kay L. Briden v. Transit Team, Inc., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
RSS Fridley, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, et al v. Northwestern Orthopaedic Surgeons Partnership, LLP, a Minnesota … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
5 Conversion is “an act of willful interfere nce with personal property, done without lawful justification by which any person entitled thereto is deprived of use and possession.” DLH, Inc. v. Russ , (M inn.
In re the Estate of: Richard W. Koberoski, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Jesse Smith v. City of Crosby, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
DLH, d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997).
Myth Live II, Inc. v. City of Maplewood Minn. Ct. App. 2021
But there is no genuine issue of material fact when the nonmoving party presents evidence “which merely creates a metaphysical doubt as to a factual issue.” DLH, Inc. v. Russ
Kawaljit S. Bhatia, as Trustee for the next of kin of Ena M. Bhatia, deceased v. Owners Insurance … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A genuine issue of material fact exists “when re asonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” DLH
Dianne Strohmayer v. A&E Care Services, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See DLH, -70 (Minn. 1997) (explaining summary -judgment standard).
Howard Norsetter v. Minnesota Twins, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2021
LeAnn Wilbourn v. Creative Homes, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A genuine issue of material fact exists when there is sufficient evidence that would “permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” DLH
William M. Ross v. Dianne’s Custom Candles, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Lighthouse Management Inc. v. Oberg Family Farms, et al., American Federal Bank, Gateway Building Systems, Inc., CITYWide Electric, … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
And “[t] he 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
Jessica Hagen, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Minn. 2021
Barbara Henry v. Independent School District #625, a/k/a Saint Paul Public Schools Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Mid Country Tower Services v. Cemstone Products Company Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Theresa M. Anderson v. MidFirst Bank, Collection Resource LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
DLH, -71 (Minn. 1997) (stating that nonmoving part y must produce “substantial evidence” to establish genuine issue of material fact).
Capacity Wireless, LLC v. Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The nonmoving party’s burden to preclude summary judgment is to identify “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” DLH, Inc. v. Russ , (quotation omitted).
Pharaoh El-Forever Left-i Amen El v. Jeff Titus, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A genuine issue of material fact exists “when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” DLH
Scot A. Lacek v. Evolutionary Systems Corp Minn. Ct. App. 2021
which is not sufficiently probative with respect to an essential element o f the nonmoving party’s case to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” DLH, Inc. v. Russ
Travis Colsen v. Bright Birch, Inc. d/b/a Bright Birch Real Estate and d/b/a Bright Birch, a Minnesota corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A genuine issue of material fact exists “when re asonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” DLH
Knife River Corporation-North Central v. Whited Township Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Mark Moe v. Perham Stockyards, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A genuine issue of material fact exists “when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” DLH, 4 (Minn. 1997).
Katie Aase v. Megan Hamilton Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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
Court of A ppeals Chutich, J. St. Paul Park Refining Co. LLC, Respondent, vs. Minn. 2020
Theresa K. Williams, Personal Representative of the Estate of Kristen Nicole Kuether v. William M. Kuether Minn. Ct. App. 2020
No genuine issue of mate rial fact exists “whe n the nonmoving party presents evidence which merely creates a metaphysical doubt as to a factual issue and which is not sufficiently probativ e with respect to an essen tial element of the nonmoving party’s case to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” DLH
Lariat Companies, Inc. v. Barbara Wigley, Michael Wigley Minn. Ct. App. 2020
v. Dennis Drewes, Inc., -92 (Minn. App. 2005) (concluding that challenge to district court’s legal conclusion was waived because the issue was not briefed); DLH, Inc. v. Russ , (ruling that issue not raised o n appeal was waived); aff’d
American Family Insurance v. Cory Klingehoets Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See DLH, d 60, 71 (Minn. 1997) ( stating genuine issue of mat erial fact exists regarding element of nonmoving party’s case when evidence would “permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions”).
Carnea Roberson v. STI International, Bill’s Gun Shop Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Charity Slaughter v. Independent School District No. 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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
Minn. 2020
Similarly, when presented with a request for judgment as a matter of law, we ask whether “reasonable persons could draw only one conclusion from the evidence presented.” DLH, Inc. v. Russ, D-4
Karen Mattinen v. Linda Kari, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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
Mary Ellen Spinler, et al v. City of Brownsdale Minn. Ct. App. 2020
North Mill Equipment Finance, LLC v. Gruz Boga, LLC and Third Party Plaintiff, Petro Siruk and third party … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Brett Mallberg v. Mark Gustafson, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[W]hen determining whether a genuine issue of material fact for trial ex ists, the court is not required to ignore its conclusion that a particular piece of eviden ce may have no probativ e value, such that reasonable persons could not draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” DLH
Vilnis Neilands v. Elizabeth Perry Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The “substantial” in “substantial evidence” refers “to legal sufficiency and not quantum.” DLH
Ransford Frimpong v. Taylor Ridge 26 LLC and third-party plaintiff, vs. Taylor Ridge Condominium Association, Inc., et al., … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Paul Stepnes v. Beth Trautman, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Colleen Cole f/k/a Colleen Wallin v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[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
Midland Funding LLC, et al v. Joy Ford Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A genuine issue of material fact exists “when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” DLH
John Mullaney v. University of St. Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A “party resisting summary judgment must do more than rest on mere averments.” DLH
A. Darlene Gibson v. Special School District #1 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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
Aegis Insurance Services, LTD., and other interested insurers as subrogees of Northern States Power Co. and Southern Minnesota … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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, Inc. v. Russ , (quotation omitted).
R&S Crossing, LLC v. AF Enterprises, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Brian John Blawat, et al., Floyd Blawat v. Ben Huener, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Linda Gensmer, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Thomas Sendecky v. Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry Minn. Ct. App. 2019
DLH, d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997).
In Re: The Matter of the Petition for Project No. 77, Clay County Ditch No. 51-Lateral No. 3, … Minn. Ct. App. 2019