Cited by

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

761 citing documents.

In re Rutherford D. Brosious Trust Agreement. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[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
Meshbesher & Associates PA, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
when the nonmoving party presents evidence which merely creates a metaphysical doubt as to a factual issue and which is not 4 sufficiently probative with respect to an essential element of the non moving party’s case to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” DLH, Inc. v. Russ
Stephani Martinsen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
DLH, Inc. v. Russ , (Mi nn.
Lana Schulz, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
David Berger, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
No genuine issue for tria l exists “[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rati onal trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” DLH, (alteration in original) (quoting Matsushita Elec.
State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
No genuine issue of material fact exists 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 resp ect to an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” DLH, Inc. v. Russ
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Peter Christiansen, a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian, Brad Christiansen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
James A. Compart, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
But, “a ‘metaphysical doubt’ as to a factual issue will not defeat a summary judgment motion.” DLH, Inc. v. Russ
Robert P. Ivers, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[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
Bernadette L. Russell, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Scott J. Zimmer, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
While we “must not weigh the evidence ,” 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
A17-0997 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Certificate holders … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Galyna Anderson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Paul Allen Bray, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
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
Paula Mirare Overby, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Barclays Bank Delaware, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
P. 56.05; DLH, Inc. v. Russ
The Tap House Restaurant Group, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
No genuine issue for trial exists when “the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” DLH
Regents of the University of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Timothy Boldt, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
No 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 and which is not sufficiently probative with respect to an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case to permit reasonable persons to 6 draw different conclusions.” DLH
Ricky Johnson, d/b/a Rick Johnson’s Deer and Beaver, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
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, Inc. v. Russ , (alteration in original) (quoting Matsushita Elec.
EverStar, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
DLH, d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997).
Derby Construction, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
But , “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
U. S. Bank National Association, successor by merger to U. S. Bank National Association ND, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
nonmoving party’s case.” DLH, d 60, 71 (Minn. 1997).
A17-0297 A17-0059 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
There is no genuine issue for trial if 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
Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
Harstad v. City of Woodbury 902 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Harstad v. City of Woodbury 902 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
DLH, (stating that, on summary judgment, “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.”).
Michelle Alton Bonomo, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Blum v. Thompson 901 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Blum v. Thompson 901 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[Tjhere 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
Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc. 898 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
Federal National Mortgage Association, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Leeco, Inc. v. Cornerstone Bank 898 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Capistrant v. Lifetouch National School Studios, Inc. 899 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Leeco, Inc. v. Cornerstone Bank 898 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[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 non-moving party’s case to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” DLH
Capistrant v. Lifetouch National School Studios, Inc. 899 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
No genuine issue of material fact exists for trial where “the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact-to find for the,non-moving party.” DLH, (quotation omitted).
Kelly ex rel. Washburn v. Kraemer Construction, Inc. 896 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2017
Kelly ex rel. Washburn v. Kraemer Construction, Inc. 896 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2017
to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” DLH
Mahfooz Y. Saad, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
But 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, Inc. v. Russ
Drummer Development, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
As the party resisting summary judgment, Drummer Development needed to “do more than rest on mere averments.” DLH, Inc. v. Russ
Park Estates, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Summary judgment is appropriate when the nonmoving party does not 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
Waters Edge Community Association, Inc., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
DLH, d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997).
James F. Edgar, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
ict court’s statements that “[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial,” and that “a reasonable juror could not conclude that [the assailant’s] tap/poke of [Edgar’s] shoulder would put a bartender on notice that [the assailant] had vicious or dangerous propensities.” In DLH, Inc. v. Russ , –71 (Minn. 1997), the supreme court observed that the district court’s proper function on summary-judgment
Laila Jama, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Summary judgment is only appropriate where “there is no genuine dispute regarding the material facts, and a party is entitled to judgment under the law applicable to such facts.” DLH, Inc. v. Russ , see also Minn. R. Civ.
In the Matter of the Petition of CitiMortgage, Inc., a New York corporation, relating to Certificate of Title … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Accounts Receivable Services, LLC, as Successor in Interest to Allina Health System, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A genuine issue of material fact exists “when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” DLH Inc. v. Russ
Isanti Pines Tree Farm, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
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 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