Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cummings v. Koehnen, 568 N.W.2d 418.

81 citing documents.

Kolton v. County of Anoka 645 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2002
422 n. 5 (Minn.1997) (acknowledging departure from federal rule because of textual differences between the MHRA and federal statute).
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A. 636 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Criticized Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A. 636 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
422 n. 5 (Minn.1997) (declining to follow federal Title VII cases where language of MHRA dissimilar to Title VII).
Hamblin v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc. 636 N.W.2d 150 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Hamblin v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc. 636 N.W.2d 150 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortgage Banking 632 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2001
Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortgage Banking 632 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2001
Kolton v. County of Anoka 628 N.W.2d 643 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Criticized Kolton v. County of Anoka 628 N.W.2d 643 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
422 n. 5 (Minn.1997) (rejecting federal rule that proof of disparate impact on one gender is necessary element of sexual harassment claim).
General Mills, Inc. v. Gold Medal Insurance Co. 622 N.W.2d 147 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
General Mills, Inc. v. Gold Medal Insurance Co. 622 N.W.2d 147 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
ANALYSIS “On an appeal from summary judgment, we must examine two questions, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the lower courts erred in their application of the law.” (citation omitted).
S O Designs USA, Inc. v. Rollerblade, Inc. 620 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
S O Designs USA, Inc. v. Rollerblade, Inc. 620 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
ANALYSIS “On an appeal from summary judgment, we must examine two questions, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the lower courts erred in their application of the law.” (citation omitted).
Goins v. West Group 619 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Goins v. West Group 619 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Hince v. O'KEEFE 613 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Hince v. O'KEEFE 613 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Kismet Investors, Inc. v. County of Benton 617 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Kismet Investors, Inc. v. County of Benton 617 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(on appeal from summary judgment, reviewing court determines whether case raises genuine issues of material fact and whether district court erred in application of law).
Douglas v. Schuette 607 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Douglas v. Schuette 607 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
ANALYSIS I. Summary Judgment “On appeal from summary judgment, we must examine two questions, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the lower courts erred in their application of the law.” (citation omitted).
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
Schons v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 604 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Schons v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 604 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
ANALYSIS “On an appeal from summary judgment, we must examine two questions, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the lower courts erred in their application of the law.” (citation omitted).
Murray v. Minncor 596 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Murray v. Minncor 596 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Rodgers v. General Electric Capital Corp. 596 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Rodgers v. General Electric Capital Corp. 596 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
ANALYSIS “On appeal from summary judgment, we must examine two questions, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the lower court erred in their application of the law.” (citation omitted).
Costilla v. State 571 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Costilla v. State 571 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See Continental Can, d at 248-49 (holding co-employee sexual harassment actionable; MHRA should be liberally construed); -23 (Minn. 1997) (holding same-sex sexual harassment actionable; MHRA should be liberally construed).