Cited by

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

765 citing documents.

Manor Warehouse & Delivery, Inc. v. Tracy Gratton, et al. and third party plaintiffs, vs. Gail Bendt, third … 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 v. Better Water Industries, Inc., Thein Well Company Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Red Cross Construction, LLC v. Donald Brenn, Martha Brenn 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 v. Serge Ngouambe, et al 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
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 v. Lindell & Lavoie LLP 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 v. Kara Engleka Minn. Ct. App. 2018
DLH, Inc. v. Russ , (Mi nn.
Lana Schulz, et al v. Power Movers of Minnesota, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
David Berger v. Timothy Wynes, et al 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 v. Lee Thomas Boril, et al. Below, Boundary Waters Land … 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 v. Stephen C. Roberts, Genevieve B. Roberts, Capital Alliance Financial, LLC, et al., … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Peter Christiansen, a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian, Brad Christiansen v. Kyler Kobus, Duluth … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
James A. Compart, et al v. Justin J. Wolfstellar, et al., Bank of West 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 v. Cub Foods 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 v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Scott J. Zimmer, et al v. Brett M. Larson, et al 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
In the Matter of the Edward M. Williams Residuary Trust Created Under Article 5 of Last Will and … 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 v. Melissa Houghtaling, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Paul Allen Bray v. Starbucks Corporation, et al 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 v. CitiMortgage, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Barclays Bank Delaware v. Abdulkarim Dahir Minn. Ct. App. 2017
P. 56.05; DLH, Inc. v. Russ
The Tap House Restaurant Group, LLC v. Cassidy Turley Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. d/b/a Cushman & Wakefield, … 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 v. Doran University III, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Timothy Boldt v. Mike’s Electrical Central MN, LLC, d/b/a Mike’s Electric 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. v. Anoka County 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 v. Aitkin County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2017
DLH, d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997).
Derby Construction v. Jade Lutzi Painting, LLC, Expert Insulation, Inc. 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 v. Anita Brochette … 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 v. Midtown Partners, LLC 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 v. Valerie R. LeMaster, et al 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 v. PNC Bank National Association, et al 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. v. Baxter BBQ, Incorporated, Charles Torgerson, Jr., Randy Jernberg 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 v. City of St. Paul Park 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 v. Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
DLH, d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997).
James F. Edgar v. Moose Lodge 2023 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 v. Mayo Clinic, and J. Does 1-10, Mayo Clinic Employees, Whose true legal names are presently … Minn. Ct. App. 2017