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).
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."
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.
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).
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).
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."
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.
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).
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.
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).