Cited by

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

765 citing documents.

CSM Equities, LLC v. Woodland Village Investments Limited Partnership, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[S]ummary judgment is inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” DLH
Contractors Edge, Inc. v. City of Mankato Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Cameron Anderson v. North American Gear & Forge Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Contractors Edge, Inc. v. City of Mankato Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Cameron Anderson v. North American Gear & Forge Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[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.” DLH
Soderberg & Vail, LLC v. Meshbesher & Spence, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jane Doe 175, a minor, by her mother and natural guardian, Mother Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School … 873 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jane Doe 175, a minor, by her mother and natural guardian, Mother Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School … 873 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
To defeat summary judgment, the nonmoving party must do more than “merely create[] a metaphysical doubt as to a factual issue” or “rest on mere averments.” DLH
Soderberg & Vail, LLC v. Meshbesher & Spence, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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, (alteration in original) (quoting Matsushita Elec.
Valerie R. LeMaster v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC fka Green Tree Financial Servicing Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Valerie R. LeMaster v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC fka Green Tree Financial Servicing Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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, (quotation omitted).
Christina Marshall v. Owen Hoglund, Stephen Hoglund, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Megan Heikes, Integrity Insurance Co., … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Highland Bank v. Mary L. Wyatt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Christina Marshall v. Owen Hoglund, Stephen Hoglund, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Megan Heikes, Integrity Insurance Co., … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
]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 7 sufficiently probative with respect to an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” DLH
Highland Bank v. Mary L. Wyatt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But “the party resisting summary judgment must do more than rest on mere averments.” DLH
John Stratton v. Pop Dental, LLC, et al., Karl Dexheimer, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Sandra Williams, et al v. Canterbury Inn Shakopee, LLC, d/b/a Americas Best Value Inn & Suites, d/b/a Arizonas … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Capital One Bank, N. A v. Don T. Mashak Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Karla Kay Edenloff v. Maxistorage, LLC, a/k/a Maxistorage 1801, LLC, Maxistorage 1807, LLC and Maxistorage 1711, LLC d/b/a … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Robert L. Follis, Georgia K. Follis v. State Armory Building Commission Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Karla Coltrain v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Karla Coltrain v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Sandra Williams, et al v. Canterbury Inn Shakopee, LLC, d/b/a Americas Best Value Inn & Suites, d/b/a Arizonas … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Robert L. Follis, Georgia K. Follis v. State Armory Building Commission Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[W]hen 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
Capital One Bank, N. A v. Don T. Mashak Minn. Ct. App. 2015
There is no genuine issue of material fact when “the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” DLH, (quotation omitted).
Karla Kay Edenloff v. Maxistorage, LLC, a/k/a Maxistorage 1801, LLC, Maxistorage 1807, LLC and Maxistorage 1711, LLC d/b/a … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See DLH, (“[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 person
John Stratton v. Pop Dental, LLC, et al., Karl Dexheimer, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Gieseke, d at 221 (describing reasonable expectation of future economic relationship as “the expectation that the relationship eventually will yield the desired benefit, rather than the more speculative expectation that a potentially beneficial relationship will arise” (quotation omitted)); see also DLH, (stating that “summary judgment is inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented”).
Charles Smida, et al v. Isanti Pines Tree Farm, LLC and third party plaintiff, vs. John F. Vande … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kevin Holler, et al v. Hennepin County, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kevin Holler, et al v. Hennepin County, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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
Charles Smida, et al v. Isanti Pines Tree Farm, LLC and third party plaintiff, vs. John F. Vande … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
328 Barry Avenue, LLC v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC 871 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 2015
328 Barry Avenue, LLC,Appellant v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC, and third party v. Carciofini Company, third party Marvin … Minn. 2015
328 Barry Avenue, LLC v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC 871 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 2015
328 Barry Avenue, LLC,Appellant v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC, and third party v. Carciofini Company, third party Marvin … Minn. 2015
Franklin C. Olson v. Rustic Bar, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Pang Her Xiong v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Reliakor Services, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Pang Her Xiong v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Reliakor Services, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Franklin C. Olson v. Rustic Bar, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
No genuine issue of material fact remains for trial when the nonmoving party presents evidence that “merely creates a metaphysical doubt as to a factual issue and which is not 7 sufficiently probative with respect to an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” DLH, 71 (Minn. 1997) (noting that summary judgment is “inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented”).
James F. Christie v. Estate of Dilman Christie, et al., Charles Christie, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
James F. Christie v. Estate of Dilman Christie, et al., Charles Christie, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
One such standard is “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 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, (relying on Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S. Ct. 2505 (
Julie Strelow, et al v. Winona Steamboat Days Festival Association Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Julie Strelow, et al v. Winona Steamboat Days Festival Association Minn. Ct. App. 2015
7 “[W]hen 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
Jeffrey P. Kirk v. State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeffrey P. Kirk v. State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester, First Transit, Inc. 868 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester, First Transit, Inc. 868 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
DLH, (“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.”).
Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A. v. Gene Rechtzigel, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ezell Moore, individually and as trustee for the heirs of Valerie M. VanMieghem, Decedent v. CenterPoint Energy Resources … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Timothy T. Childs, et al v. North River Road Condominium Association Minn. Ct. App. 2015