Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & Clinics, 426 N.W.2d 425.

625 citing documents.

Stenger v. State 449 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & Clinics
First Trust Co., Inc. v. State 449 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Francis v. Hansing 449 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Moen v. Mikhail 447 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Moen v. Mikhail 447 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust v. City of Coon Rapids 446 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust v. City of Coon Rapids 446 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bennett 445 N.W.2d 279 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bennett 445 N.W.2d 279 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & Clinics
Padco, Inc. v. Kinney & Lange 444 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Padco, Inc. v. Kinney & Lange 444 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
ANALYSIS I. On appeal from summary judgment, the appellate court must determine: “(1) whether there are any genuine issues of material fact * * *, and (2) whether the trial court erred in its application of the law.” (citation omitted); see Minn.R.
Bauer v. Republic Airlines, Inc. 442 N.W.2d 818 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Bauer v. Republic Airlines, Inc. 442 N.W.2d 818 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & Clinics
State Ex Rel. Cooper v. Hennepin County 441 N.W.2d 106 Minn. 1989
State Ex Rel. Cooper v. Hennepin County 441 N.W.2d 106 Minn. 1989
“On an appeal from summary judgment, the role of the reviewing court is to review the record for the purpose of answering two questions: (1) whether there are any genuine issues of material fact to be determined, and (2) whether the trial court erred in its application of the law.” Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & Clinics
Minneapolis Auto Auction, Ltd. v. Spicer Auto Sales, Inc. 439 N.W.2d 23 Minn. 1989
Minneapolis Auto Auction, Ltd. v. Spicer Auto Sales, Inc. 439 N.W.2d 23 Minn. 1989
Niccum v. Hydra Tool Corp. 438 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 1989
Niccum v. Hydra Tool Corp. 438 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 1989
“On an appeal from summary judgment, the role of the reviewing court is to review the record for the purpose of answering two questions: (1) whether there are any genuine issues of material fact to be determined, and (2) whether the trial court erred in its application of the law.” Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & Clinics
St. Aubin v. Burke 434 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
St. Aubin v. Burke 434 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Aubin relies on Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & Clinics
Sabes & Richman, Inc. v. Muenzer 431 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Sabes & Richman, Inc. v. Muenzer 431 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Dalton v. Dow Chemical Co., 280 Minn. 147, 154
Chizmadia v. Smiley's Point Clinic 428 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Chizmadia v. Smiley's Point Clinic 428 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(where patient sought treatment from a clinic as a whole rather than an individual physician, the treatment of the clinic as a whole is relevant for purposes of determining when treatment terminated and statute of limitations began to run).