Download this Paper Open PDF in Browser

Summary Judgment in Minnesota: A Search for Patterns

24 Pages Posted: 15 Oct 2011  

James R. Pielemeier

Hamline University School of Law

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

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:

James R. Pielemeier (Contact Author)

Hamline University School of Law ( email )

1536 Hewitt Avenue
Saint Paul, MN 55104-1237
United States

Paper statistics

Abstract Views