Cited by

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

1039 citing documents.

Embree v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n 828 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“[T]he reviewing court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted.”
Lamere v. St. Jude Medical, Inc. 827 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Lamere v. St. Jude Medical, Inc. 827 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Grady v. Green Acres, Inc. 826 N.W.2d 547 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Grady v. Green Acres, Inc. 826 N.W.2d 547 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
("On appeal, the reviewing court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted.”).
McKee v. Laurion 825 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2013
McKee v. Laurion 825 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2013
Kellogg v. Finnegan 823 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Kellogg v. Finnegan 823 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“On appeal, the reviewing court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted.”
Vangelder v. Johnson 827 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Vangelder v. Johnson 827 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Schupp v. United Fire & Casualty Co. 821 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Schupp v. United Fire & Casualty Co. 821 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In doing so, we “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted.”
Kastning v. State Farm Insurance Companies 821 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Kastning v. State Farm Insurance Companies 821 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
We view the evidence in the record “in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted.”
Ram Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rohde 820 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
Ram Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rohde 820 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
We review the district court’s “legal decisions on summary judgment under a de novo standard,” SCI Minn. Funeral Servs., and “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted,”
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Letellier 820 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Letellier 820 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
The evidence is viewed “in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted.”
Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co. 817 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 2012
Mitchell v. Smith 817 N.W.2d 742 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Mitchell v. Smith 817 N.W.2d 742 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis 817 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2012
Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis 817 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2012
Moen v. Sunstone Hotel Properties, Inc. 818 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Moen v. Sunstone Hotel Properties, Inc. 818 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Meriwether Minnesota Land & Timber, LLC v. State 818 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Meriwether Minnesota Land & Timber, LLC v. State 818 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
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.” (citing Minn. R. Civ.
Cisar v. Slyter 812 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Cisar v. Slyter 812 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
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
They argued that the malpractice claim is essentially a claim for reduced chance of life because the allegations refer to a “shortened life expectancy” and “deprivation of normal life expectancy,”
Maday v. Grathwohl 805 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Maday v. Grathwohl 805 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“On appeal, the reviewing court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted.”
Dimke v. Farr 802 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Dimke v. Farr 802 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Minnwest Bank v. Arends 802 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
RAM Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rohde 805 N.W.2d 554 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Minnwest Bank v. Arends 802 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
RAM Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rohde 805 N.W.2d 554 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“A motion for summary judgment shall be granted 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.”
City of Maple Grove v. Marketline Construction Capital, LLC 802 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
City of Maple Grove v. Marketline Construction Capital, LLC 802 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
This court “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted.”
Marlow Timberland, LLC v. County of Lake 800 N.W.2d 637 Minn. 2011
Marlow Timberland, LLC v. County of Lake 800 N.W.2d 637 Minn. 2011
P. 15.01 “should be freely granted, except where to do so would result in prejudice to the other party.” (considering whether trial court erred by not granting party’s motion to amend complaint); accord Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc., (“Leave to amend [pursuant to Minn. R. Civ.
Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co. 802 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co. 802 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Matthews v. Eichorn Motors, Inc. 800 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Matthews v. Eichorn Motors, Inc. 800 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Ironwood Springs Christian Ranch, Inc. v. Emmaus 801 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Ironwood Springs Christian Ranch, Inc. v. Emmaus 801 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2011