Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758.

1039 citing documents.

State v. Thomas 584 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Thomas 584 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Christopherson v. Fillmore Township 583 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Christopherson v. Fillmore Township 583 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Ciardelli v. Rindal 582 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1998
Ciardelli v. Rindal 582 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1998
We have stated thát “[t]he' statute of limitations will be extended when a doctor’s negligence is part of a continuing course of treatment, such as when a doctor consistently fails to properly treat a fracture.”
Rahman v. Mayo Clinic 578 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Rahman v. Mayo Clinic 578 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(concluding on appeal from grant of summary judgment, court must accept as true factual allegations of nonmoving party).
Berg v. Hubbard County 578 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Berg v. Hubbard County 578 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Obert v. Dahl 574 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Obert v. Dahl 574 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Sterling Capital Advisors, Inc. v. Herzog 575 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Sterling Capital Advisors, Inc. v. Herzog 575 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Buchanan v. Minnesota State Department of Health 573 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Buchanan v. Minnesota State Department of Health 573 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Lang v. City of Maplewood 574 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Lang v. City of Maplewood 574 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
The evidence must be viewed “in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted.”
Bryson v. Pillsbury Co. 573 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Bryson v. Pillsbury Co. 573 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In making this determination, we “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted.”
W.J.L. v. Bugge 573 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 1998
W.J.L. v. Bugge 573 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 1998
Veerkamp v. Farmers Cooperative Creamery of Foreston, Minnesota 573 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Veerkamp v. Farmers Cooperative Creamery of Foreston, Minnesota 573 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Lhotka v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 572 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Lhotka v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 572 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In such eases, the appellate court must consider “the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted.”
State v. Keeton 573 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Hodel v. Gundle Lining Construction Corp. 572 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Hodel v. Gundle Lining Construction Corp. 572 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Keeton 573 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
“The court will strike documents included in a party’s brief that are not part of the appellate record.” aff'd
Cherne Contracting Corp. v. Wausau Insurance Companies 572 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Cherne Contracting Corp. v. Wausau Insurance Companies 572 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted.”
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Delano Community Development Corp. 571 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1997
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Delano Community Development Corp. 571 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1997
Costilla v. State 571 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Costilla v. State 571 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In our analysis, we “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted.”
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
D.A.B. v. Brown 570 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
D.A.B. v. Brown 570 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
§ 541.07(1) (providing for a two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims); (outlining prima facie case for medical malpractice cause of action and discussing two-year statute of limitations).
Tullis v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co. 570 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1997
Tullis v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co. 570 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1997
4 Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that either party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
Smith v. Brutger Companies 569 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1997
Femrite v. Abbott Northwestern Hospital 568 N.W.2d 535 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Petition of Willmus 568 N.W.2d 722 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Femrite v. Abbott Northwestern Hospital 568 N.W.2d 535 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(error-correcting appellate court is hesitant to adopt new theories of law), aff'd
Petition of Willmus 568 N.W.2d 722 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Angell v. Hennepin County 565 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Angell v. Hennepin County 565 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Cummings v. Koehnen 568 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 1997