Cited by

To preclude summary judgment, a nonmoving party must rely on more than “unverified and conclusory allegations,” d 666, 672 (Minn. 2001), and instead “must produce evidence that is ‘sufficiently probative with respect to an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions,’” Metro.

The most similar, binding Minnesota case discussing section 323, cited only by the NCAA here

See Wendell v. Comm’r of Revenue, d 405, 413 (Minn. 2024) (stating that to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party “must do more than rest on mere averments” (quotation omitted)); d 666, 672 (Minn. 2001) (stating that the nonmoving party “cannot defeat a summary judgment motion with unverified and conclusory allegations”); see also Nicollet Restoration, Inc. v. City of St.

A district court must grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant if the record contains “a complete lack of proof on any of the four essential elements of the negligence claim.”

The nonmoving party “cannot defeat a summary judgment motion with unverified and conclusory allegations or by postulating evidence that might be developed at trial.” d 666, 672 (Minn. 2001); see also Wendell v. Comm’r of Revenue, d 405, 413 (Minn. 2024) (stating that to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party “must do more than rest on mere averments” (quotation omitted)).

The nonmoving party “cannot defeat a summary judgment motion with unverified and conclusory allegations or by postulating evidence that might be developed at trial.” d 666, 672 (Minn. 2001); see also Wendell v. Comm’r of Revenue, d 405, 413 (Minn. 2024) (stating that to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party “must do more than rest on mere averments” (quotation omitted)); DLH, 5 (stating

Summary judgment is appropriate when the record contains “a complete lack of proof on any of the four essential elements of the negligence claim.”

A party “cannot defeat a summary judgment motion with unverified and conclusory allegations or by postulating evidence that might be developed at trial.”

Still, summary judgment is proper “when the record contains a complete lack of proof on any of the four essential elements of the negligence claim.”

And the nonmoving party “cannot defeat a summary judgment motion with unverified and conclusory allegations or by postulating evidence that might be developed at trial.”

And the nonmoving party “cannot defeat a summary judgment motion with unverified and conclusory allegations or by postulating evidence that might be developed at trial.” (citation omitted).

d 666, 673 n.4 (Minn. 2001) (noting that “crime prevention is essentially a government function, not a private duty”); (holding that a landowner owed no duty to a person murdered by a third party because there was no way for the landowner to know ahead of time whether

Funchess v. Cecil Newman Corp.

See Funchess v. Cecil Newman Corp. , (stating that “a reviewing court generally may consider only those issues that the record shows were presented to and considered by the trial court”).

Existence of a duty in a negligence case is a question of law.” d 666, 672 (Minn. 2001).

might have given someone permission despite her recorded statement to the contrary.” Finally, the district court noted that mere speculation is “insufficient to create a factual dispute to survive summary judgment.” Fuchness v. Cecil Newman Corp.

To succeed on a negligence cause of action, a plaintiff must prove four essential elements: “(1) the existence of a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) an injury, and (4) the breach of the duty being the proximate cause of the injury.”

Funchess v. Cecil Newman Corp.

(applying Restatement section 323).

The nonmoving party “cannot defeat a summary judgment motion with unverified and conclusory allegations or by postulating evidence that might be developed at trial.” (citation omitted).

(holding that a party may not change the record on appeal).

“[A] reviewing court generally may consider only those issues that the record shows were presented to and considered by the [district] court.” (emphasis added).

Summary judgment is appropriate when the record contains “a complete lack of proof on any of the four essential elements of the negligence claim.”

The conclusion that an as-needed repair person does not owe a broad duty to inspect for and warn of defects is consistent with our general caution and reluctance “to impose a duty to protect between those conducting 6 business with one another.”

(Minn. 2 The July 7 contempt order only left the record open for the parties’ submissions regarding damages and attorney fees.

As the district court correctly observed, the 2004 contract called for Minnesota Power to perform “technician-level work,” not “engineering services.” Our courts are “generally cautious and reluctant to impose a duty to protect between those conducting business with one another.”

(quoting section 323 and determining that no duty existed because landlord providing security measures did not constitute a service necessary for the protection of tenant’s person or things).

(“In deciding a matter before it, a reviewing court generally may consider only those issues that the record shows were presented to and considered by the trial court.”); Hollywood Dairy, (declining to consider whether complaint could be construed to