Cited by

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

259 citing documents.

Ai Viet Thi Nguyen v. Phu Chau Nguyen 565 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Although proximate cause generally is a question of fact for the jury, it is a question of law “where reasonable minds can arrive at only one conclusion.”
DLH, Inc. v. Russ 566 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1997
DLH, Inc. v. Russ 566 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1997
at 2552 ); (summary judgment mandatory for the defendant when “the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiffs claim”).
Sutherland v. Barton 560 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Berres v. Anderson 561 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Sutherland v. Barton 560 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Berres v. Anderson 561 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(entitling defendant to summary judgment when record reflects “a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiffs claim”).
Midwest Sports Marketing, Inc. v. Hillerich & Bradsby of Canada, Ltd. 552 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Midwest Sports Marketing, Inc. v. Hillerich & Bradsby of Canada, Ltd. 552 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Summary judgment for a defendant is appropriate as a matter of law “when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiffs claim.”