Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Swanlund v. Shimano Industrial Corp.

459 N.W.2d 151 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Swanlund v. Shimano Industrial Corp.

54 Citing cases

  1. Olson v. Snap Products, Inc.

    29 F. Supp. 2d 1027 (D. Minn. 1998)   Cited 37 times
    Noting that the party moving to disqualify opposing counsel bears the burden of showing disqualification is necessary

    We do so with full recognition of the case authority which states that, in applying the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 549.191, the Court should examine the evidence in support of a punitive damages claim, without considering the evidence submitted in opposition to the claim. Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc., 870 F.Supp. 1499, 1502-03 (D.Minn.1994); Swanlund v. Shimano Indus., 459 N.W.2d 151, 154 (Minn.App.1990) (proffered evidence should be considered "without cross-examination or other challenge."). At the same time, the Minnesota Supreme Court commands the Courts, which consider such a Motion, to "do more than `rubber stamp' the allegations in the motion papers," for they "must ascertain whether there exists prima facie evidence that the defendants acted with `willful indifference.'"

  2. Smith v. Morales

    No. A07-2377 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2008)   Cited 1 times

    " Id. "The term `prima facie' does not refer to a quantum of evidence, but to a procedure for screening out unmeritorious claims for punitive damages." Swanlund v. Shimano Indus. Corp., 459 N.W.2d 151, 154 (Minn.App. 1990), review denied (Minn. Oct. 5, 1990).

  3. Murrin v. Fischer

    Civ. No. 07-1295 (PJS/RLE) (D. Minn. Jan. 18, 2008)

    Ultimately, the Court's independent search for clear and convincing, prima facie evidence, that the defendant acted with a deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others, requires the Court to do more than "rubber stamp" the allegations in the Motion papers. Id.; Swanlund v. Shimano Indus. Corp., Ltd., 459 N.W.2d 151, 154 (Minn.App. 1990).

  4. Berczyk v. Emerson Tool Company

    Civ. No. 02-1335 (RHK/RLE) (D. Minn. Sep. 16, 2003)   Cited 39 times
    In Berczyk v. Emerson Tool Co., 291 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (D. Minn. 2003), the court rejected an argument that the manufacturer exhibited deliberate disregard by failing to issue a recall, simply noting that Minnesota has not recognized any duty to recall or retrofit a product.

    Under the strictures of Section 549.191, "the Court reviews the evidence in support of a Motion to Amend as the Court would review a Motion for a Directed Verdict * * *." Ulrich v. City of Crosby, supra at 867; see also, Swanlund v. Shimano Indus., Corp., Ltd., 459 N.W.2d 151, 154 (Minn.App. 1990). Thus, as we have observed in prior cases, in reaching such a determination, the Court makes no credibility rulings, and does not consider any challenge, by cross-examination or otherwise, to the plaintiff's proof.Id.

  5. Lincoln v. Sears Home Improvement Products, Inc.

    Civil No. 02-CV-840 (DWF/SRN) (D. Minn. Sep. 2, 2003)

    "The term `prima facie' does not refer to a quantum of evidence, but to a procedure for screening out unmeritorious claims for punitive damages." Swanlund v. Shimano Indus. Corp., 459 N.W.2d 151, 154 (Minn.App. 1990). A court does not make credibility findings and does not consider evidence offered in opposition.

  6. Hern v. Bankers Life Casualty Co.

    133 F. Supp. 2d 1130 (D. Minn. 2001)   Cited 24 times
    Denying motion to amend complaint to add punitive-damages claim where plaintiff could not establish prima facie case of defamation

    Under the strictures of Section 549.191, "the Court reviews the evidence in support of a Motion to Amend as the Court would review a Motion for a Directed Verdict. . . ." Ulrich v. City of Crosby, supra at 867; see also, Swanlund v. Shimano Indus., Corp., Ltd., 459 N.W.2d 151, 154 (Minn.App. 1990). Thus, as we have observed in prior cases, in reaching such a determination, the Court makes no credibility rulings, and does not consider any challenge, by cross-examination or otherwise, to the plaintiff's proof.

  7. Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minn.

    895 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. 2017)   Cited 38 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Leiendecker, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota's anti-SLAPP statute was unconstitutional because it "instruct[ed] district courts to usurp the role of the jury by making pretrial factual findings that c[ould]... result in the complete dismissal of the underlying action."

    Am. President Lines, Ltd. , 32 F.3d 1244, 1255 (8th Cir. 1994) (quoting Swanlund v. Shimano Indus. Corp. , 459 N.W.2d 151, 154 (Minn. App. 1990) ) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under the punitive damages statute, the moving party must establish a prima facie case by clear and convincing evidence, which consists only of producing evidence that will "reasonably allow" a conclusion of willful indifference, much like a summary-judgment standard.

  8. Brown v. Duluth Steam Coop. Ass'n

    A14-1598 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2015)

    The parties dispute whether the proper standard of review is de novo or abuse of discretion. The Browns argue that a de novo standard applies, citing our decision in Swanlund v. Shimano Indus. Corp., Ltd., 459 N.W.2d 151, 155 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. Oct. 5, 1990).

  9. Anderson v. Foglesong

    No. A09-453 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2009)

    We acknowledge the decision in Swanlund v. Shimano Indus. Corp., which recognized the abuse-of-discretion standard of review but applied a de novo standard. 459 N.W.2d 151, 155 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. Oct. 5, 1990).

  10. Bunker v. Meshbesher

    147 F.3d 691 (8th Cir. 1998)   Cited 14 times

    In order to succeed on a punitive damages claim under Minnesota law, "the plaintiff must show `clear and convincing' evidence of willful indifference to the rights or safety of others." Swanlund v. Shimano Indus. Corp., 459 N.W.2d 151, 154 (Minn.Ct.App. 1990) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 549.20). The "clear and convincing" standard of proof is "implicitly incorporated into the requirement that the movant present a prima facie case of willful indifference."