Cited by

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

761 citing documents.

Merchant & Gould P.C., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
.” DLH, Inc. v. Russ , (Mi nn.
Kay L. Briden, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
RSS Fridley, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, et al., Appellants, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
DLH, d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997).
Dianne Strohmayer, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See DLH, -70 (Minn. 1997) (explaining summary -judgment standard).
Myth Live II, Inc., Appellant, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A genuine issue of material fact exists “when re asonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” DLH
Howard Norsetter, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
LeAnn Wilbourn, Appellant, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Lighthouse Management Inc., Plaintiff, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Mid Country Tower Services, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Theresa M. Anderson, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Mark Moe, Appellant, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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., Respondent, 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, Appellant, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Charity Slaughter, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
North Mill Equipment Finance, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Brett Mallberg, Respondent, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The “substantial” in “substantial evidence” refers “to legal sufficiency and not quantum.” DLH
Ransford Frimpong, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Paul Stepnes, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Colleen Cole f/k/a Colleen Wallin, Appellant, 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., Respondents, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A “party resisting summary judgment must do more than rest on mere averments.” DLH
A. Darlene Gibson, Appellant, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Brian John Blawat, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Linda Gensmer, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Thomas Sendecky, Appellant, 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
Affordable Home Builders, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Cannon Falls Mall Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
To defeat a summary-judgment motion, the nonmoving party must show more than a “metaphysical doubt as to a factual issue.” DLH, (quotation omitted) .
Waasohn Dorliae, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[S]ummary judgment is inappropri ate when reasonable persons mi ght draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” DLH
In the Matter of the Lindmark Endowment for Corporate-Business Ethics Fund. Minn. Ct. App. 2019