24 Pages Posted: 15 Oct 2011
Date Written: January 1, 1981
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.
Keywords: Rule 56, burden of proof, paradigm cases
Suggested Citation: 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: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1929821