Cited by

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

761 citing documents.

In the Matter of Virginia Marie Carlson, Unlicensed. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Leisure Hills , d at 75; see also DLH, Inc. v. Russ , (quotation omitted).
A Xiong, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A genuine issue of material fact exists “when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.”
Thomas Sullivan, as guardian and conservator for Marc L. Beeman, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A genuine issue of material fact exists “when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” DLH
In the Matter of the Bette R. Peterson Revocable Trust, Dated August 8, 1996, as Amended, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
James M. Erickson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Bradley Wingate, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Because “ the party resisting summary judgment must do more than rest on mere averments,” DLH, Inc. v. Russ , the 2012 ranking list does not support an inference of pretext.
Nicollet Plaza, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
To defeat summary judgment, the nonmoving party must show more than a “metaphysical doubt as to a factual issue.” DLH, (quotation omitted).
Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc. 929 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2019
Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc. 929 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2019
See DLH, Inc. v. Russ , , 71 (Minn. 1997) (noting that "the party resisting summary judgment must do more than rest on mere averments" and that "there 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"); Nicollet Restoration, Inc. v. City
County of Sherburne, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Joel S. Rabbe, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Donna Delfino, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Gary White, Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A genuine issue of material fact exists when a fact may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party, but “the nonmoving party must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the mate rial facts.” DLH, -70 (Minn. 1997) (quotation omitted).
Kevin Scott Karsjens, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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 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, Inc. v. Russ
Lynn Baker Handelman-Seigel, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Jun Xiao, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
No genuine issue for trial exists “[w]here the recor d taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” DLH, (alteration in original) (quoting Matsushita Elec.
In re the Matter of Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee for Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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 4 to an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” DLH
Shelley Lynn Yocom, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See DLH, Inc. v. Russ , (“[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
BFI Waste Sys. of N. Am., LLC v. Bishop 927 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
BFI Waste Sys. of N. Am., LLC v. Bishop 927 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Louis County , , 507 (Minn. 2006) ; see DLH, Inc. v. Russ , , 70 (Minn. 1997) (stating that the district court "must not weigh the evidence on a motion for summary judgment").
Brandon Moore, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Richard Pomije, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
DLH, d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997).
McBee v. Team Indus., Inc. 925 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 2019
McBee v. Team Indus., Inc. 925 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 2019
DLH, Inc. v. Russ , , 69 (Minn. 1997).
Edwards Lifesciences, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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
Jason Rhoades, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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, d 326, 330 (Minn. App. 1996) (ruling that issue not raised on appeal was waived), aff’d
Rodney Wayne Kesanen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See DLH, Inc. v. Russ , (“[A] metaphysical doubt as to a factual issue will not defeat a summ ary judgment motion.” (quotation omitted)).
Patrick Takuanyi, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The district court’s function on a motion for summary judgment is not to decide issues of fact, but solel y t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r genuine factual issues exist.” DLH
In re the Appeal from the Order of the Joint Board of Kandiyohi and Meeker Counties Acting as … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Discover Bank, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
No genuine issue of material fact exists “[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” DLH, (quotation omitted).
Thomas A. Ruether, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A genuine issue of material fact does not exi st when “the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” DLH, d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997) (quoting Matsushita Elec.
Ellis Olkon, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A genuine issue of material fact exists “when reasonable person s might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.”
Debra L. Cich, et al., petitioners, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
No genuine issue of material fact exists “[w]here 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).
County of Pope, Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“However, when determining whether a genuine issue of material fact for trial exists, the court is not required to ignore its conclusion that a particular piece of evidence may have no probative value, such that reasonable persons could not draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” DLH
Premium Plant Services, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“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
, A17-2080, A17-2081, A18-0015 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
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
Sharee Nolan, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
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, Inc. v. Russ
Ahmed Said, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
But we are “not required to ignore [our] conclusion that a particular piece of evidence may have no probative value, such that reasonable persons could not draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” DLH
Production Stamping, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Christensen Law Office, PLLC v. Olean 916 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Christensen Law Office, PLLC v. Olean 916 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
P. 56.03 ; see DLH, Inc. v. Russ , , 69 (Minn. 1997).
A17-1320 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
P. 56.03; see DLH, Inc. v. Russ
Shane Reasner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
[T]he court must not weigh the evidence on a motion for summary judgment.” DLH, d 60, 70 (Minn. 1997).
Bradley Yde, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Said Ahmed Nur, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
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, Inc. v. Russ
J.C. Allen Co., Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Furthermore, the non-moving party must introduce evidence that is more than “merely colorable” and more than a “scintilla” ; the evidence must be “significantly probative.” DLH, -71 (Minn. 1997) (quotation omitted).
Manor Warehouse & Delivery, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“However, when determining whether a genuine issue of material fact for trial exists, the court is not require d to ignore its conclusion that a particular piece of evidence may have no probative value, such that reasonable persons could not draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” DLH
Criticized George Lanoue, et al., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Red Cross Construction, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
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 12 with respect to an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case to permit reasonable persons to draw dif ferent conclusions.” DLH, Inc. v. Russ , 0 (Minn. 1997).
Christensen Law Office, PLLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
No genuine issue of material fact exists “when th e 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 co nclusions.” DLH, Inc. v. Russ