legally sufficient claim in Minnesota

2017We review a district court’s decision on- a Rule 12.03 motion de novo to determine whether “the complaint sets' forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Id. (quoting Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., 663 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Minn. 2003)).

2015This court applies a de novo standard of review to the question “whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., 663 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Minn. 2003).

2016Safety, 298 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Minn. 1980) (stating that the standard of review on a motion for dismissal is whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief).

1997On appeal from a judgment of dismissal for failure to state a claim, we should consider “whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Elzie v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 298 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Minn.1980) (quoting Royal Realty Co. v. Levin, 244 Minn. 288, 290 , 69 N.W.2d 667 . 670 (1955)). “[T]he determination of a claim’s viability presents a question of law, which we review[] de novo.” Anderson v. Minnesota Ins.

2009P. 12.02(e) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, the question before this court is whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief." Hebert v. City of Fifty Lakes, 744 N.W.2d 226, 229 (Minn. 2008) (citing Barton v. Moore, 558 N.W.2d 746, 749 (Minn.1997)).

2009P. 12.02(e) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, the question before this court is whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Hebert v. City of Fifty Lakes, 744 N.W.2d 226, 229 (Minn.2008) (citing Barton v. Moore, 558 N.W.2d 746, 749 (Minn.1997)).

2025When reviewing the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted pursuant, “the question before this court is whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Hebert v. City of Fifty Lakes, 744 N.W.2d 226, 229 (Minn. 2008).

2024In deciding a 3 rule 12.02(e) motion, “the question . . . is whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Id.

2024Appellate courts “review de novo whether a complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief” and, in doing so, they “accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 851 N.W.2d 598, 606 (Minn. 2014) (reviewing a district court’s grant of a rule 12.02(e) motion); see also Burt v. Rackner, Inc., 902 N.W.2d 448, 451 (Minn. 2017) (“We review a district court’s decision on a Rule 12.03 motion de novo to determine whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” (quot

2017P. 12.02(e) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, “the question before [an appellate] court is whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Hebert v. City of 5 Fifty Lakes, 744 N.W.2d 226, 229 (Minn. 2008). “[Appellate courts] review de novo whether a complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 851 N.W.2d 598, 606 (Minn. 2014).

1997On appeal from a judgment of dismissal for failure to state a claim, we should consider “whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Elzie v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 298 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Minn.1980) (quoting Royal Realty Co. v. Levin, 244 Minn. 288, 290 , 69 N.W.2d 667 . 670 (1955)). “[T]he determination of a claim’s viability presents a question of law, which we review[] de novo.” Anderson v. Minnesota Ins.

1997On appeal from a judgment of dismissal for failure to state a claim, we should consider “whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Elzie v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 298 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Minn.1980) (quoting Royal Realty Co. v. Levin, 244 Minn. 288, 290 , 69 N.W.2d 667 . 670 (1955)). “[T]he determination of a claim’s viability presents a question of law, which we review[] de novo.” Anderson v. Minnesota Ins.

2024When reviewing the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim, we “review the legal sufficiency of the claim de novo to determine whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Graphic Commc’ns Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund “A” v. CVS Caremark Corp., 850 N.W.2d 682, 692 (Minn. 2014).

2016“When a case is dismissed . . . for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted, [an appellate court] review[s] the legal sufficiency of the claim de novo to determine whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Graphic Commc’ns Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund A v. CVC Caremark Corp., 850 N.W.2d 682, 692 (Minn. 2014). 6 Appellant challenges the district court’s dismissal of counts I, III, IV, V, and VI of his second amended complaint, arguing that the district court erred by concluding that (1) these claims were barred by the statute of limitations and

2002Nat’l Bank, 506 N.W.2d 22, 25 (Minn.App.1993), review denied (Minn. Nov. 16, 1993).

2001Geldert v. American Nat’l Bank, 506 N.W.2d 22, 25 (Minn.App.1993), review denied (Minn. Nov. 16, 1993).

2025“We review a district court’s decision on a Rule 12.03 motion de novo to determine whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Burt v. Rackner, Inc., 902 N.W.2d 448, 451 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).

2024Appellate courts “review de novo whether a complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief” and, in doing so, they “accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 851 N.W.2d 598, 606 (Minn. 2014) (reviewing a district court’s grant of a rule 12.02(e) motion); see also Burt v. Rackner, Inc., 902 N.W.2d 448, 451 (Minn. 2017) (“We review a district court’s decision on a Rule 12.03 motion de novo to determine whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” (quot

2017See Williams v. Bd. of Regents, 763 N.W.2d 646, 651 (Minn. App. 2009) (quotation omitted).

2016P. 12.03 motion for judgment on the pleadings, we review the judgment “de novo and determine only whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Williams v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Minnesota, 763 N.W.2d 646, 651 (Minn. App. 2009) (quotation omitted).

2016On review of a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under rule 12.02(e), “we consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true.” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., 834 N.W.2d 683, 686 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).

2014Sipe, 834 N.W.2d at 686 . “[T]he question before this court is whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Hebert v. City of Fifty Lakes, 744 N.W.2d 226, 229 (Minn. 2008).

2025Sterry v. Minn. Dep’t of Corr., 8 N.W.3d 224, 235 (Minn. 2024).

2025A plaintiff can have standing in two ways: (1) “the plaintiff has suffered some ‘injury-in-fact,’” or (2) “the plaintiff is the beneficiary of some legislative enactment granting standing.” State by Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc., 551 N.W.2d 490, 493 (Minn. 1996).

2024When determining whether dismissal was appropriate, we “must consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., 663 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Minn. 2003) (citing Marquette Nat’l Bank v. Norris, 270 N.W.2d 290, 292 (Minn. 1978)).

2016“Equity follows the law,” Kingery v. Kingery, 185 Minn. 467, 470 , 241 N.W. 583, 584 (1932), and a district court’s decision to grant equitable relief is not unlimited, but must be supported by the facts and the law.

2016“Equity follows the law,” Kingery v. Kingery, 185 Minn. 467, 470 , 241 N.W. 583, 584 (1932), and a district court’s decision to grant equitable relief is not unlimited, but must be supported by the facts and the law.

2016Although “[appellate courts] accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party,” id., “a legal conclusion in the complaint is not binding on [an appellate court],” Bahr v. Capella Univ., 788 N.W.2d 76, 80 (Minn. 2010).

2015“A claim is sufficient against a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim if it is possible on any evidence which might be produced, consistent with the pleader’s theory, to grant the relief demanded.” Id. at 603 ; see also N. States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 395 , 122 N.W.2d 26, 29 (1963) (stating that “a pleading will be dismissed only if it appears to a certainty that no facts, which could be introduced consistent with the pleading, exist which would support granting the relief demanded”).

2015“A claim is sufficient against a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim if it is possible on any evidence which might be produced, consistent with the pleader’s theory, to grant the relief demanded.” Id. at 603 ; see also N. States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 395 , 122 N.W.2d 26, 29 (1963) (stating that “a pleading will be dismissed only if it appears to a certainty that no facts, which could be introduced consistent with the pleading, exist which would support granting the relief demanded”).

2014Park Nicollet Clinic v. Hamann, 808 N.W.2d 828, 881 (Minn.2011).

2014Park Nicollet Clinic v. Hamann, 808 N.W.2d 828, 831 (Minn. 2011).

2014Fair Debt Collections Practices Act Violations The district court cited Gray v. Four Oak Court Ass’n, Inc., 580 F. Supp. 2d 883, 886 (D.

2010Bahr v. Capella Univ., 765 N.W.2d 428, 436, 439 (Minn.App.2009).

2010Bahr v. Capella Univ., 765 N.W.2d 428, 436, 439 (Minn.App.2009).

2009See In re Milk Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litig., 588 N.W.2d 772, 775 (Minn.App.1999) (reversing a rule 12 dismissal where the complaint set forth a legally sufficient claim).

2009See In re Milk Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litig., 588 N.W.2d 772, 775 (Minn.App.1999) (reversing a rule 12 dismissal where the complaint set forth a legally sufficient claim).

2003Barton v. Moore, 558 N.W.2d 746, 749 (Minn.1997); Leonard v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 605 N.W.2d 425, 428 (Minn.App.2000), review denied (Minn. Apr. 18, 2000). “[T]he only question before [the reviewing court] is whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Barton, 558 N.W.2d at 749 .

1996P. 12.02(e), [t]he only question for review is whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief; it is immaterial whether or not [plaintiff] can prove any of the facts alleged. *677 Diedrich v. State, 393 N.W.2d 677, 680 (Minn.App.1986) (citing Elzie v. Comm’r of Pub.

1990We also employ the following standards of review regarding the trial court’s order denying appellants’ motions: “whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief,” Elzie v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 298 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Minn.1980) (motion to dismiss), and “whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law,” Hubred v. Control Data Corp., 442 N.W.2d 308, 310 (Minn.1989) (summary judgment).

1990We also employ the following standards of review regarding the trial court's order denying appellants' motions: "whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief," Elzie v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 298 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Minn.1980) (motion to dismiss), and "whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law," Hubred v. Control Data Corp., 442 N.W.2d 308, 310 (Minn.1989) (summary judgment).