Cited by

Further, “[a]ny doubt as to whether 6 issues of material fact exist is resolved in favor of the party against whom summary judgment was granted.”

“A defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.”

“A defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.”

The nonmoving party cannot avoid summary judgment by pointing to “unverified and conclusionary allegations in his pleading or by postulating evidence which might be developed at trial.” (quotation omitted).

“Any doubt as to whether issues of material fact exist is resolved in favor of the party against whom summary judgment was granted.”

As such, “[a]ny doubt as to whether issues of material fact exist is resolved in favor of the party against whom 6 summary judgment was granted.”

See Humana, 2024 WL 4997432, at *22 ( n.3 (Minn. 1995), for the proposition that a court need not decide remaining issues when it determines that a party was entitled to summary judgment).

In the first, the supreme court stated: [I]n order for a party’s negligence to be the proximate cause of an injury the act must be one which the party ought, in the exercise of ordinary care, to have anticipated was likely to result in injury to others, .

(“A defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.”).

(“A defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.”).

“A defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim[s].”

“A defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.”

Instead, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s action was a “substantial factor in bringing about the injury.”

“ A defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.”

“A defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.”

However, “[a] defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.”

However, it becomes a question of law when “reasonable minds can arrive at only one conclusion.”

But “[a] defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law [if] the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.”

“A defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law [if] the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.”

Summary judgment is mandatory when “the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.”

(quotation omitted); see Peterson v. Am.

“A defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.” Lubbers v. 3 Anderson

“A defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.”

(noting summary judgment is only proper, as a matter of law, “when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element”).

“A defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.”

4 DECISION “A defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.” see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (“[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.”); DLH, (“[N]o genuine issue of material fact for tria

DECISION A defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law “when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.”

When, as here, the defendant moves for summary judgment, the motion must be granted when the record lacks proof of “an essential element of the plaintiff ’s claim.”

10 state must show that: (1) the allegedly negligent party committed an act that, in the exercise of ordinary care, the negligent party should have anticipated would likely injure others, even if the party could not anticipate the precise injury that resulted, and (2) the act was a “substantial factor in causing the death,” see also Lubbers, d at 401.

But “[a] defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law [if] the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.”

” Generally, “[a]ny doubt as to whether issues of material fact exist is resolved in favor of the party against whom summary judgment was granted.”

But “[a] defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.” d 398, 401 (Minn. 1995).

“Any doubt as to whether issues of material fact exist is resolved in favor of the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” Lubbers 6 v. Anderson, 1 (Minn. 1995) (citing Rathbun v. W.T.