Cited by

But “[m]ere speculation, without some concrete evidence, is not enough to avoid summary judgment.” Bob Useldinger & Sons, see also Gradjelick v. Hance , (“A nonmoving party cannot defeat a summary judgment motion with unverified and conclusory allegations or by postulating evidence that might be developed at trial.”).

“Mere speculation, without some concrete evidence, is not enough to avoid summary judgment.” Bob Useldinger & Sons, (requiring more than “unverified and conclusory allegations”).

is conclusive evidence of duty and breach.” n.3 (Minn. 2002).

(stating that summary judgment cannot be avoided by “unverified and conclusory allegations or by postulating evidence that might be developed at trial”); Osborne, d at 371 ( stating that “[m]ere speculation, without some concrete evidence, is not enough to avoid summary judgment” (quota

7 Proving an “ordinary negligence claim” requires a plaintiff to establish four essential elements: “(1) the existence of a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) an injury, and (4) the breach of the duty being the proximate cause of the injury.”

When the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof on an issue, they must present admissible evidence “to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” see Minn. R. Civ.

See Gradjelick v. Hance , -31 (Minn. 2002) (stating that nonmoving parties cannot defeat summary judgment with unverified or conclusory allegations and must present sufficient evidence to allow reasonable persons to draw differing conclusions).

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986); -231 (Minn. 2002) (citations omitted).

When a statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, it is 12 “A per se negligence rule substitutes a statutory standard of care for the ordinary prudent person standard of care, such that a violation of a statute (or an ordinance or regulation adopted under statutory authority) is conclusive evidence of duty and breach.” n.3 (Minn. 2002).

“[I]f the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof on an issue, that party must present sufficient evidence to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.”

The nonmovant cannot simply rely on “unverified and conclusory allegations” or postulate “evidence that might be d eveloped at trial.”

Gradjelick v. Hance , , 231 (Minn. 2002).

Gradjelick v. Hance , , 231 (Minn. 2002).

A defendant in a negligence action is entitled to summary judgment if “the record reflects a complete lack of proof on any of the four essential elements of the claim: (1) the existence of a duty of care, (2) breach of that duty, (3) an injury, and (4) the breach of the duty being the proximate cause of the injury.”

If the moving party meets this burden, then the onus is on the nonmoving party to “present sufficient evidence to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.”

A genuine issue of material fact exists if the evidence “would permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.”

d 225, 235 (Minn. 2002).

A defendant is entitled to summary dismissal of a negligence claim when “the record reflects a complete lack of proof on any of the four essential elements of the claim: (1) the existence of a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) an injury, and (4) the breach of the duty being the proximate cause of the injury.”

Paul, (stating that a summary-judgment motion cannot be defeated “with unverified and conclusory allegations or by postulating evidence that might be developed at trial”).

A defendant is entitled to summary dismissal of a negligence claim when “the record reflects a complete lack of proof on any of the four essential elements of the claim: (1) the existence of a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) an injury, and (4) the breach of the duty being the proximate cause of the injury.”