Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kletschka v. Abbott-Northwestern Hospital, Inc., 417 N.W.2d 752.

31 citing documents.

Troy Olds v. City of Moorhead Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“In order to successfully oppose summary judgment, appellant must extract specific, admissible facts from the voluminous record and particularize them for the [district court].” Kletschka v. Abbott- Northwestern Hosp., Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Brian’s Lawn & Landscaping, Inc. dba Rock Hard Landscape Supply v. Last Chance Ranch, Inc., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“In order to successfully oppose summary judgment, [a party] must extract specific, admissible facts from the voluminous record and particularize them for the trial judge.” Kletschka v. Abbott- Northwestern Hosp., Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Thomas Coleman v. City of Stillwater, RMR of Stillwater, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Thomas Coleman v. City of Stillwater, RMR of Stillwater, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Hosp., Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Hodan Dualeh v. Mohamed Abdulle, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Hosp., Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Ridgewood Bay Resort, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Hosp., Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Pharaoh El-Forever Left-i Amen El v. Jeff Titus, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
22 particularize them for the [court].” Kletschka v. Abbott -Northwestern Hosp., Inc. , review denied (Minn. Mar.
Wade S. Nukala v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The party “must extract specific, admissible facts from the voluminous record and particularize them for the [court].” Kletschka v. Abbott-Northwestern Hosp., Inc., review denied (Minn. Mar.
Karen Mattinen v. Linda Kari, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Hosp., Inc. , review denied (Minn. Mar.
John Moore v. Robinson Environmental, et al., Century Surety Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Hosp., Inc. , -56 (Minn. App. 1988) (affirming award of costs and disbursements to defendant who obtained summary judgment in its favor because, among other grounds, one claim was time-barred), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Brett Mallberg v. Mark Gustafson, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“In order to successfully oppose a motion for summary judgment, appellant must extract specific, admissible facts from the voluminous record and particularize them for the [district court] judge.” Kletschka v. Abbott-Northwestern Hosp., Inc. , review denied (Minn. Mar.
Robert Grado v. Integrated Office Solutions Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“In order to successfully oppose summary judgment, appellant must extract specific, admissible facts from the voluminous record and particularize them for the [district court] judge.” Kletschka v. Abbott-Northwestern Hosp., Inc. , review denied (Minn. Mar.
Jill M. Larsen v. Wells Fargo Bank NA Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Kletschka v. Abbott-Northwestern Hosp., Inc., d 752, 754 (Minn. App. 1988) (“[A] party cannot rely upon mere general statements of fact but rather must demonstrate at the time the motion is made that specific facts are in existence which create a genuine issue for trial.”), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Nell Mathews, et al. Appellants v. City of the Village of Minnetonka Beach, Vanessa Abraham, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Kletschka v. Abbott-Northwestern Hosp., Inc. , review denied (Minn. Mar.
Thomas A. Ruether, et al v. Kathleen Mimbach Living Trust, et al., City of Rockville Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Kletschka v. Abbott -Northwestern Hosp., Inc. , review denied (Minn. Mar.
Jeffrey Beckman, et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., Robert A. Tenold, et al., Green Line … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jeffrey Beckman, et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., Robert A. Tenold, et al., Green Line … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Hosp., Inc., (second emphasis added), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Beecroft v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. 798 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Beecroft v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. 798 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Kletschka v. Abbott-Northwestern Hosp., Inc., review denied (Minn. Mar.
Helgerson v. Bridon Cordage, Inc. 518 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Helgerson v. Bridon Cordage, Inc. 518 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
To successfully oppose a motion for summary judgment, “a party cannot rely upon mere general statements of fact but rather must demonstrate at the time the motion is made that specific facts are in existence which create a genuine issue for trial.” pet.
Stinson v. Clark Equipment Co. 473 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Stinson v. Clark Equipment Co. 473 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Kletschka v. Abbott-Northwestern Hosp., Inc., pet.
Hunt v. University of Minnesota 465 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Hunt v. University of Minnesota 465 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
(statements based on reasonable grounds because appellant conceded the statements reflected widely held perceptions of her), pet.
Gunnufson v. Onan Corp. 450 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Gunnufson v. Onan Corp. 450 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
The party opposing summary judgment must “extract specific, admissible facts from the voluminous record and particularize them for the trial judge.” Kletschka v. Abbott-Northwestern Hospital, Inc., (emphasis in original), pet.
Clough v. Ertz 442 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Clough v. Ertz 442 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
The trial court found that under Kletschka v. Abbott-Northwestern Hosp., Inc., pet.
Rademacher v. FMC Corp. 431 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Rademacher v. FMC Corp. 431 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1988