Braylock v. Jesson
| Docket Number | A10-1754 |
| Decision Date | 08 August 2012 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
54 cases
-
DeCook v. Olmsted Med. Ctr., Inc.
...the plaintiff bears the initial burden of production, and the defendant bears the ultimate burden of persuasion. See Braylock v. Jesson, 819 N.W.2d 585, 589–90 (Minn.2012) (concluding that a "prima facie case" and coming "forward with the evidence" are synonymous, require the same quantum o......
-
Forster v. Theis, A17-0459
...before August 1, 2015, when the amended statute took effect. See 2015 Minn. Laws ch. 17, § 13, at 164; see also Braylock v. Jesson , 819 N.W.2d 585, 588 (Minn. 2012) ("When the Legislature merely clarifies preexisting law, the amended statute applies to all future or pending litigation. If,......
-
State v. Wood
...501 N.W.2d at 676. Although the presumption may be rebutted if the legislature intended only to clarify the law, see Braylock v. Jesson , 819 N.W.2d 585, 588 (Minn. 2012), the presumption is not rebutted here. The legislature made substantive changes in the implied-consent law in 2017. But ......
-
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minn., A16-0360
...is "the obligation of a party to come forward with sufficient evidence to support its claim or the relief requested." Braylock v. Jesson , 819 N.W.2d 585, 590 (Minn. 2012) ; see also Burden of Production , Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). The burden of persuasion is "the obligation t......
Request a trial to view additional results