Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lubbers v. Anderson, 539 N.W.2d 398.

259 citing documents.

Jeffrey Beckman v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Robert A. Tenold v. Green Line Home Services, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jeffrey Beckman v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Robert A. Tenold v. Green Line Home Services, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But summary judgment for the defendant is mandatory when “the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.” d 398, 401 (Minn. 1995).
Robert P. Lindstrom v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Robert P. Lindstrom v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“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.”).
Starry Electric, Inc. v. Gilman Cooperative Creamery Association Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Starry Electric, Inc. v. Gilman Cooperative Creamery Association Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Conversely, a party “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.”
Michael Barlow v. Hospitality Center for Chinese, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael Barlow v. Hospitality Center for Chinese, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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.”
Jessica Mattson v. City of Rushford, Minnowa Construction, Inc., State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, Edwards and Kelcey, … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jessica Mattson v. City of Rushford, Minnowa Construction, Inc., State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, Edwards and Kelcey, … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James L. Mandel v. Multiband Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James L. Mandel v. Multiband Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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.”
CSM Equities, LLC v. Woodland Village Investments Limited Partnership Minn. Ct. App. 2016
CSM Equities, LLC v. Woodland Village Investments Limited Partnership Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But, “[a] defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.”
Julie Strelow v. Winona Steamboat Days Festival Association Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Julie Strelow v. Winona Steamboat Days Festival Association Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But the moving party “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 [nonmoving party’s] claim.”
Kristine Benton v. Tom Hedine Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kristine Benton v. Tom Hedine Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Summary judgment for the defendant is appropriate “if there are no facts in the record before us giving rise to a genuine issue for trial as to any one of these essential elements.”
David Herzog v. Cottingham & Butler Insurance Services, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
David Herzog v. Cottingham & Butler Insurance Services, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The moving party “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.”
Kimberly Shierts, Trustee for the Heirs of Jodie Shierts v. University of Minnesota Physicians, Regents of the University … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Kimberly Shierts, Trustee for the Heirs of Jodie Shierts v. University of Minnesota Physicians, Regents of the University … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“Generally, proximate cause is a question of fact for the jury; however, where reasonable minds can arrive at only one conclusion, proximate cause is a question of law.”).
Routson Investments, Inc. v. Andrews Properties, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Routson Investments, Inc. v. Andrews Properties, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Doe 169 v. Brandon 845 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 2014
Doe 169 v. Brandon 845 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 2014
State v. Smith 835 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
State v. Smith 835 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
(stating that proximate causation is a question of fact for the jury unless reasonable minds can arrive at only one conclusion); Gatson, d at 148 (concluding that the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on superseding cause when the defendant failed to present evidence fro
Citizens State Bank Norwood Young America v. Brown 829 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Citizens State Bank Norwood Young America v. Brown 829 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Grp., Inc., (quotations omitted); (stating as to question of fact that, “where reasonable minds can arrive at only one conclusion,” question can be decided as a matter of law).
Renswick v. Wenzel 819 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Renswick v. Wenzel 819 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Anderson v. Christopherson 816 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2012
Anderson v. Christopherson 816 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2012
Generally, under the common law, as we said in Lubbers v. Anderson, “proximate cause is a question of fact for the jury; however, where reasonable minds can arrive at only one conclusion, proximate cause is a question of law.”
Dickhoff ex rel. Dickhoff v. Green 811 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Dickhoff ex rel. Dickhoff v. Green 811 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
Anderson v. Christopherson 802 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Butts ex rel. Iverson v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society 802 N.W.2d 839 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Butts ex rel. Iverson v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society 802 N.W.2d 839 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
P. 56.03, which provides that, when the requirements for summary judgment are met, “[jjudgment shall be rendered forthwith,” in which the Minnesota Supreme Court held that “[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 plaintiffs claim.” But neither authority compels a district court to address pending summary-judgment motio
Anderson v. Christopherson 802 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Curtis v. Klausler 802 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Curtis v. Klausler 802 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Although proximate cause is generally a fact question for the jury, it becomes a question of law and may be disposed of by summary judgment “where reasonable minds can arrive at only one conclusion.” *794
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 796 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda 789 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 2010
Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda 789 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 2010
GEIST-MILLER v. Mitchell 783 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
GEIST-MILLER v. Mitchell 783 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Still, “[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 plaintiffs claim.”
Taylor v. LSI CORP. OF AMERICA 781 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2010

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by