Ariola v. City of Stillwater

24 Citing cases

  1. Nukala v. State

    No. A20-0720 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2021)

    Green-Glo Turf Farms, Inc. v. State, 347 N.W.2d 491, 495 (Minn. 1984); see Ariola v. City of Stillwater, 889 N.W.2d 340, 354 (Minn. App. 2017) (discussing trespasser exception to recreational-use immunity), review denied (Minn. Apr. 18, 2017).

  2. Arrocha v. Como Park Zoo & Conservatory

    No. A20-0876 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2021)

    One exception to this general rule is when the claim is barred by "recreational-use immunity." See Ariola v. City of Stillwater, 889 N.W.2d 340, 353-54 (Minn. App. 2017). The statute codifying recreational-use immunity provides that it applies to "[a]ny claim based upon the construction, operation, or maintenance of any property owned or leased by the municipality that is intended or permitted to be used as a park, as an open area for recreational purposes, or for the provision of recreational services."

  3. Lunda Constr. Co. v. Cnty. of Anoka

    No. A18-0515 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2019)   Cited 2 times
    Explaining that MnDOT contract provision stated that failure to provide requisite notice "constitute[d] a waiver of . . . entitlement to compensation or a time extension" and that failure to submit claim within specified timeframe "waive[d] all claims for additional compensation in connection with the work already performed"

    To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must do more than "merely create[] a metaphysical doubt as to a factual issue." Ariola v. City ofStillwater, 889 N.W.2d 340, 353 (Minn. App. 2017) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr. 18, 2017). The nonmoving party must present sufficient evidence to allow reasonable persons to find in its favor.

  4. Daulton v. TMS Treatment Ctr.

    No. A23-0483 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2024)

    Therefore, respondent's reliance on the statute of limitations as a defense to appellant's wrongful-death claim implicates the district court's subject-matter jurisdiction, which we review de novo. Ariola v. City of Stillwater, 889 N.W.2d 340, 348 (Minn.App. 2017), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 18, 2017).

  5. In re Kraskey

    A17-1243 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2018)

    2000), and we "only overrule our precedent if provided with a compelling reason to do so." Ariola v. City of Stillwater, 889 N.W.2d 340, 356 (Minn. App. 2017), review denied (Minn. Apr. 18, 2017) (quotation omitted).

  6. Zayed v. Associated Bank

    913 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2019)   Cited 38 times
    Noting that "a party must provide more than conjecture and speculation" to survive a summary judgment motion

    Zayed I, 779 F.3d at 733 (quoting Witzman, 601 N.W.2d at 187 ). As the court notes, we evaluate these elements in tandem, Witzman, 601 N.W.2d at 188, and both can be proved by circumstantial evidence, K & S P’ship v. Cont’l Bank, N.A., 952 F.2d 971, 977 (8th Cir. 1991) ; Ariola v. City of Stillwater, 889 N.W.2d 340, 356–57 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017), review denied (Apr. 18, 2017). "[W]here there is a minimal showing of substantial assistance, a greater showing of scienter is required."

  7. Boogaard v. Nat'l Hockey League

    255 F. Supp. 3d 753 (N.D. Ill. 2017)   Cited 7 times
    Denying leave to amend where the plaintiff did not request leave to amend his complaint, and citing cases

    Jensen , 399 N.W.2d at 86 ; see alsoOrtiz , 590 N.W.2d at 123 (discussing Minnesota courts' "consistent interpretation of Minn. Stat. § 573.02's time limit as a strict condition precedent to maintaining a wrongful death action."); Bonhiver v. Fugelso, Porter, Simich & Whiteman, Inc. , 355 N.W.2d 138, 142 (Minn. 1984) ("Satisfaction of the limitation period is an absolute prerequisite to bringing suit."); Berghuis v. Korthu i s , 228 Minn. 534, 37 N.W.2d 809, 810 (1949) ( "This period fixing the time within which the right of action for wrongful death may be exercised is not an ordinary statute of limitations. It is considered a condition precedent to the right to maintain the action, and the lapse of such period is an absolute bar."); Ariola v. City of Stillwater , 889 N.W.2d 340, 348 (Minn. App. 2017) (observing that the three-year limitations period "is jurisdictional, requiring dismissal for failure to comply and does not have flexible parameters permitting it to be ignored if its application is too technical") (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Boogaard died in May 2011, Doc. 174 at ¶ 165, and no trustee was appointed in the three years that followed.

  8. In re Gade

    No. A24-0453 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2024)

    To demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must "present specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial"-it is not sufficient for the nonmoving party to rely on "evidence which merely creates a metaphysical doubt as to a factual issue." Ariola v. City of Stillwater, 889 N.W.2d 340, 353 (Minn.App. 2017) (quotations omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 18, 2017).

  9. Brandt v. Brandt

    No. A23-1902 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2024)

    Subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law which we review de novo. Ariola v. City of Stillwater, 889 N.W.2d 340, 348 (Minn.App. 2017), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 18, 2017). Minnesota courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over, and the authority to divide property in, a marriage-dissolution proceeding.

  10. Przybilla v. Vista Prairie at River Heights, LLC

    No. A23-0805 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2024)

    Prairie argues that the district court erred by denying the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo. Ariola v. City of Stillwater, 889 N.W.2d 340, 348 (Minn.App. 2017), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 18, 2017).