Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1929821
 


 



Summary Judgment in Minnesota: A Search for Patterns


James R. Pielemeier


Hamline University School of Law

January 1, 1981

William Mitchell Law Review, Vol. 7, p. 147, 1981

Abstract:     
Although the Minnesota Supreme Court frequently has slated that the moving party has the burden of demonstrating clearly the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact on a motion for summary judgment, Professor Pielemeier’s analysis of recent Minnesota decisions indicates that the extent of that burden differs depending on whether the moving party or party opposing the motion will have the burden of proof on dispositive issues at trial. Professor Pielemeier identifies four paradigm situations in which motions for summary judgment typically are made and provides the analytical framework to aid both litigants and courts in determining when summary disposition is warranted.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 24

Keywords: Rule 56, burden of proof, paradigm cases

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: October 15, 2011  

Suggested Citation

Pielemeier, James R., Summary Judgment in Minnesota: A Search for Patterns (January 1, 1981). William Mitchell Law Review, Vol. 7, p. 147, 1981. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1929821

Contact Information

James R. Pielemeier (Contact Author)
Hamline University School of Law ( email )
1536 Hewitt Avenue
Saint Paul, MN 55104-1237
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 116
Downloads: 9

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.266 seconds