Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Nicollet Restoration, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 533 N.W.2d 845.

115 citing documents.

Soderberg & Vail, LLC v. Meshbesher & Spence, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Soderberg & Vail, LLC v. Meshbesher & Spence, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Franklin C. Olson v. Rustic Bar, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Franklin C. Olson v. Rustic Bar, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Paul, d 845, 848 (Minn. 1995) (affirming summary judgment because appellant failed to present specific admissible facts showing a genuine issue for trial).
In re the Supervised Estate of: Timothy D. Kehr Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Supervised Estate of: Timothy D. Kehr Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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
Robert Berg a/k/a Rob Berg v. Keith Waters & Associates, Inc., Portico Green, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Robert Berg a/k/a Rob Berg v. Keith Waters & Associates, Inc., Portico Green, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Paul, (stating that a summary-judgment motion cannot be defeated “with unverified and conclusory allegations or by postulating evidence that might be developed at trial”).
Jacky L. Larson v. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, CMInformation Specialists, Inc. 855 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2014
Jacky L. Larson v. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, CMInformation Specialists, Inc. 855 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2014
David Greve v. Breezy Point International, Inc. d/b/a Breezy Point Resort Minn. Ct. App. 2014
David Greve v. Breezy Point International, Inc. d/b/a Breezy Point Resort Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Paul, see also Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc., (stating that “circumstantial evidence must be more than simply consistent with the plaintiff’s theory of causation; reasonable minds must be able to conclude from the circumstances that the theory adopted outweighs and prepond
Capital Midwest Fund, LP v. Douglas E. Johnson, Steven Quay Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Capital Midwest Fund, LP v. Douglas E. Johnson, Steven Quay Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Paul, (concluding that the record did not support a finding of reasonable reliance on summary judgment where promises were made by one lacking authority to bind the promisor).
Limberg v. Mitchell 834 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Limberg v. Mitchell 834 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Barker v. County of Lyon 813 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Barker v. County of Lyon 813 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Bearder v. State 788 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Bearder v. State 788 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Paul, (stating that while causation is usually a jury issue, general assertions of substantial evidence are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for trial); Murphy, 307 Minn. at 351 , d at 512 (stating material fact issue must be established by “substantial evidence”).
BankCHEROKEE v. INSIGNIA DEVELOPMENT, LLC 779 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
BankCHEROKEE v. INSIGNIA DEVELOPMENT, LLC 779 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Barth v. Stenwick 761 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Barth v. Stenwick 761 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
McIntosh County Bank v. Dorsey & Whitney, LLP 745 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 2008
McIntosh County Bank v. Dorsey & Whitney, LLP 745 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 2008
Hoyt Properties, Inc. v. Production Resource Group, L.L.C. 736 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 2007
Hoyt Properties, Inc. v. Production Resource Group, L.L.C. 736 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 2007
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. 730 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. 730 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Paul, (stating that nonmoving party obligated to present “specific admissible facts” on summary judgment).
Javinsky v. Commissioner of Administration 725 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Javinsky v. Commissioner of Administration 725 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Paul, (holding that land developer’s reliance on representations made by city officials regarding possibility of city financing was not reasonable because there was no guarantee of the city council’s approval).
Hoyt Properties, Inc. v. Production Resource Group, L.L.C. 716 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Hoyt Properties, Inc. v. Production Resource Group, L.L.C. 716 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Paul, see also Placke v. White-Price Co., 179 Minn. 147, 150 , 228 N.W.
Kluball v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 706 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Kluball v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 706 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Minnwest Bank Central v. Flagship Properties LLC 689 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Minnwest Bank Central v. Flagship Properties LLC 689 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Frerichs Construction Co. v. Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust 666 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Frerichs Construction Co. v. Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust 666 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Leamington Co. v. Nonprofits' Insurance Ass'n 661 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Leamington Co. v. Nonprofits' Insurance Ass'n 661 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Paul, (citation omitted).
Heidbreder v. Carton 645 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2002
Heidbreder v. Carton 645 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2002
Paul, (recognizing that summary judgment is appropriate on promissory estoppel claim if plaintiffs reliance on alleged promise was unreasonable as a matter of law).
Gunderson v. Harrington 619 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Gunderson v. Harrington 619 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Paul, -48 (Minn.1995) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 , 106 S.Ct.
Sutton v. Viking Oldsmobile Nissan, Inc. 611 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Sutton v. Viking Oldsmobile Nissan, Inc. 611 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2000

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by