# Laura L. Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

> Supreme Court of Minnesota · August 6, 2014 · 851 N.W.2d 598

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9802695

## Case

- **Full name:** Laura L. WALSH, Respondent, v. U.S. BANK, N.A., Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Minnesota
- **Decided:** August 6, 2014
- **Citations:** 851 N.W.2d 598; 2014 Minn. LEXIS 361; 2014 WL 3844201
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Dietzen
- **Judges:** Lillehaug, Gildea, Dietzen
- **Cited by:** 113 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9802695

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that a rule’s unambiguous plain language is controlling, but that “its purpose and history, and its procedural context,” are also relevant to its interpretation
- stating that, when reviewing the rule- 12.02(e) dismissal of a complaint, “[appellate courts] accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party”
- stating that when the court reviews a motion to dismiss it must “accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party”
- noting with approval “the common-sense proposition that we are not bound by legal conclusions stated in a complaint when determining whether the complaint survives a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)
- explaining that "we do not add words or phrases to unambiguous statutes" (citation omitted)

## Opinion text

DIETZEN, J.
(concurring).
I join in the concurrence of Chief Justice Gildea.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9802695. Public record. Not legal advice.