Cited by

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

259 citing documents.

Kuhl v. Heinen 672 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Kuhl v. Heinen 672 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. Lambrecht 663 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2003
Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. Lambrecht 663 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2003
See Pergament v. Loring Properties, Ltd.
Gradjelick v. Hance 646 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2002
Gradjelick v. Hance 646 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2002
Star Centers, Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P. 644 N.W.2d 72 Minn. 2002
Star Centers, Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P. 644 N.W.2d 72 Minn. 2002
(stating that proximate cause is generally a question of fact that becomes a question of law where reasonable minds can arrive at only one conclusion).
Mohler v. City of St. Louis Park 643 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Mohler v. City of St. Louis Park 643 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
“Any doubt as to whether issues of material fact exist [must be] resolved in favor of the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” (citation omitted).
Louis v. Louis 636 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2001
Louis v. Louis 636 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2001
Funchess v. Cecil Newman Corp. 632 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 2001
Funchess v. Cecil Newman Corp. 632 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 2001
Gradjelick v. Hance 627 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Gradjelick v. Hance 627 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Wear v. Buffalo-Red River Watershed District 621 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Wear v. Buffalo-Red River Watershed District 621 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
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,” even though the party “could not have anticipated the particular injury which did happen.” (citations omitted).
Peterson v. BASF Corp. 618 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Peterson v. BASF Corp. 618 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
On appeal, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” (citation omitted).
Funchess v. Cecil Newman Corp. 615 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Funchess v. Cecil Newman Corp. 615 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See Smith, d at 575 (breach); (causation).
Lund v. Southam 617 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Lund v. Southam 617 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
M.N. v. D.S. 616 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Mn v. Ds 616 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
M.N. v. D.S. 616 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Mn v. Ds 616 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortgage Banking 605 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortgage Banking 605 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Fahrendorff Ex Rel. Fahrendorff v. North Homes, Inc. 597 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1999
Fahrendorff Ex Rel. Fahrendorff v. North Homes, Inc. 597 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1999
Donahue v. Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A. 586 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
American Parkinson Disease Ass'n v. First National Bank of Northfield 584 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
American Parkinson Disease Ass'n v. First National Bank of Northfield 584 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
ANALYSIS On appeal from summary judgment, a reviewing court must determine: “(1) whether there are any genuine issues of material fact; and (2) whether the lower court erred in its application of the law.”
Energy & Air Systems, Inc. v. Kuettel 580 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Energy & Air Systems, Inc. v. Kuettel 580 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
ANALYSIS On appeal from summary judgment, we ask “(1) whether there are any genuine issues of material fact; and (2) whether the lower court erred in its application of the law.”
Hersh Properties, LLC v. McDonald's Corp. 573 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Hersh Properties, LLC v. McDonald's Corp. 573 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
On appeal from summary judgment, a reviewing court must determine: “(1) whether there are any genuine issues of material fact; and (2) whether the lower court erred in its application of the law.”
W.J.L. v. Bugge 573 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 1998
W.J.L. v. Bugge 573 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 1998
Ka Ying Vue v. State Farm Insurance Companies 568 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Ka Ying Vue v. State Farm Insurance Companies 568 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
*529 ANALYSIS On appeal from summary judgment, a reviewing court must determine: “(1) whether there are any genuine issues of material fact; and (2) whether the lower court erred in its application of the law.”
Walker v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 569 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Walker v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 569 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
*544 ANALYSIS On appeal from summary judgment, a reviewing court must determine: “(1) whether there are any genuine issues of material fact; and (2) whether the lower court erred in its application of the law.”
Canada by and Through Landy v. McCarthy 567 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1997
Canada by and Through Landy v. McCarthy 567 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1997
Ai Viet Thi Nguyen v. Phu Chau Nguyen 565 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1997

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by