Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Funchess v. Cecil Newman Corp., 632 N.W.2d 666.

88 citing documents.

Josh Campion, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The most similar, binding Minnesota case discussing section 323, cited only by the NCAA here
Ally Bank, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
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.
Jennifer Odegaard, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
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.”
Brandon Knowles, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
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)).
Absolute Resolutions Investments, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
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
Travis J Maahs, a Minnesota resident, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Summary judgment is appropriate when the record contains “a complete lack of proof on any of the four essential elements of the negligence claim.”
In the Matter of the Petition of: Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A party “cannot defeat a summary judgment motion with unverified and conclusory allegations or by postulating evidence that might be developed at trial.”
In Re: Henry Hickman, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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.”
Arch Insurance Company, as subrogee of Centre Rental, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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.”
Robert Sharot, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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).
Court of Appeals Hudson, J. Dissenting as to Part I, Anderson, J., David Smits, as Trustee for the … Minn. 2022
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
LeAnn Wilbourn, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Funchess v. Cecil Newman Corp.
Minn. 2021
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”).
Patti Lang, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Existence of a duty in a negligence case is a question of law.” d 666, 672 (Minn. 2001).
Thomas R. Blanck, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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.
James M. Erickson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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.”
Keith B. Hagen, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Funchess v. Cecil Newman Corp.
Warren v. Dinter 926 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2019
Misty Jensen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Steven Elliot Rousseau, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Charlotte Nelson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(applying Restatement section 323).
Jane Doe v. Kmart Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jane Doe v. Kmart Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2017
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).
Jodi L. Toedter, Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Susan Ann Gray v. Winona County, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jodi L. Toedter, Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Susan Ann Gray v. Winona County, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Dontrell Valerie Thornton v. Herbert Thornton, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Dontrell Valerie Thornton v. Herbert Thornton, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(holding that a party may not change the record on appeal).
Twin Cities Metro-Certified Development Company v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Stewart Title of Minnesota, Inc. 868 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Twin Cities Metro-Certified Development Company v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Stewart Title of Minnesota, Inc. 868 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[A] reviewing court generally may consider only those issues that the record shows were presented to and considered by the [district] court.” (emphasis added).
John Osmanski v. James and Jean Way d/b/a J & J Real Estate Properties, Shakopee Distribution Services, LLC, … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
John Osmanski v. James and Jean Way d/b/a J & J Real Estate Properties, Shakopee Distribution Services, LLC, … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Summary judgment is appropriate when the record contains “a complete lack of proof on any of the four essential elements of the negligence claim.”
Fred Newell v. Timothy Eide, and third party v. Norcostco, Inc., Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Fred Newell v. Timothy Eide, and third party v. Norcostco, Inc., Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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.”
Second Chance Investments, LLC v. Sabri Properties, LLC, Puentes Exteriors, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Second Chance Investments, LLC v. Sabri Properties, LLC, Puentes Exteriors, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Coco's Heart Dog Rescue v. Ann Marie Hawthorne Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Coco's Heart Dog Rescue v. Ann Marie Hawthorne Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(Minn. 2 The July 7 contempt order only left the record open for the parties’ submissions regarding damages and attorney fees.
Gurvin Femrite v. City of Lowry Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Gurvin Femrite v. City of Lowry Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Catlin Underwriting Agencies, Ltd. v. ALLETE, Inc., d/b/a Minnesota Power, Schneider Electric USA, Inc., f/k/a Square D Company, … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Catlin Underwriting Agencies, Ltd. v. ALLETE, Inc., d/b/a Minnesota Power, Schneider Electric USA, Inc., f/k/a Square D Company, … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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.”
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 816 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2012
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 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
(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).
Rios v. Jennie-O Turkey Store, Inc. 793 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Rios v. Jennie-O Turkey Store, Inc. 793 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(“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
Kratzer v. Welsh Companies, LLC 771 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2009
Larson v. Wasemiller 738 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2007