Cited by

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

259 citing documents.

Taylor v. LSI CORP. OF AMERICA 781 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Summary judgment is appropriate when the “record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiffs claim.”
State v. Back 775 N.W.2d 866 Minn. 2009
State v. Back 775 N.W.2d 866 Minn. 2009
See State v. Cantrell, 220 Minn. 13, 23 , (noting that culpable negligence statute “deal[s] with acts or omission of personal duty resulting in the death of a human being”); (explaining that the essential elements of negligence include the existence of a duty).
Bryan v. Kissoon 767 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Bryan v. Kissoon 767 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“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.”
In Re the Petition of Crablex, Inc. 762 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Petition of Crablex, Inc. 762 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Van Kampen v. Waseca Mutual Insurance Co. 754 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Van Kampen v. Waseca Mutual Insurance Co. 754 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2008
Superior Construction Services, Inc. v. Belton 749 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Superior Construction Services, Inc. v. Belton 749 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Bjerke v. Johnson 742 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2007
Bjerke v. Johnson 742 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2007
Gagliardi v. Ortho-Midwest, Inc. 733 N.W.2d 171 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Gagliardi v. Ortho-Midwest, Inc. 733 N.W.2d 171 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Although causation is generally a question of fact for the factfin-der, summary judgment is appropriate when a plaintiff cannot prove an essential element of her claim
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. 730 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. 730 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Bjerke v. Johnson 727 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Bjerke v. Johnson 727 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Phillips v. State 725 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Phillips v. State 725 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Javinsky v. Commissioner of Administration 725 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Javinsky v. Commissioner of Administration 725 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Schermer v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 721 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2006
Schermer v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 721 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2006
Cargill, Inc. v. Jorgenson Farms 719 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Cargill, Inc. v. Jorgenson Farms 719 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State Farm Fire & Casualty v. Aquila Inc. 718 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 2006
State Farm Fire & Casualty v. Aquila Inc. 718 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 2006
(quoting Rosvall v. Provost, 279 Minn. 119, 124 , ).
Lietz v. Northern States Power Co. 718 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 2006
Lietz v. Northern States Power Co. 718 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 2006
There is proximate cause between a negligent act and an injury when the act is “ ‘one which the party ought, in the exercise of ordinary care, to have anticipated was likely to result in injury to others.’ ” ().
Stuedemann v. Nose 713 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Stuedemann v. Nose 713 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Dunham v. Roer 708 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Dunham v. Roer 708 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
“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.”
Laska v. Anoka County 696 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Laska v. Anoka County 696 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Lubbers v. Anderson, *138
Olmanson v. LeSueur County 693 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 2005
Olmanson v. LeSueur County 693 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 2005
Anderson v. State, Department of Natural Resources 693 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 2005
Anderson v. State, Department of Natural Resources 693 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 2005
Willhite v. Cass County Board of Supervisors 692 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Willhite v. Cass County Board of Supervisors 692 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Allianz Insurance Co. v. PM Services of Eden Prairie, Inc. 691 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Allianz Insurance Co. v. PM Services of Eden Prairie, Inc. 691 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Anderson v. State, Department of Natural Resources 674 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Anderson v. STATE, DEPT. OF NAT. RESOURCES 674 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Anderson v. STATE, DEPT. OF NAT. RESOURCES 674 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Anderson v. State, Department of Natural Resources 674 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In a negligence action, a defendant is entitled to summary judgment when the record reflects a “complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiffs claim.”