---
title: "Summary Judgment – Material Facts"
id: "1292"
type: "page"
slug: "summary-judgment-material-facts"
published_at: "2025-03-12T21:49:11+00:00"
modified_at: "2026-02-01T21:05:10+00:00"
url: "https://justice-denied.org/summary-judgment-material-facts/"
markdown_url: "https://justice-denied.org/summary-judgment-material-facts.md"
excerpt: "Summary Judgment - Material Facts ChatGPT (AI) Analysis Yes, multiple material facts were in dispute at the time of the summary judgment motion in Stevenson v. Stevenson, despite the judge’s conclusion to the contrary. Below is a comprehens…"
taxonomy_post_tag:
  - "disputed facts in summary judgment"
  - "genuine issue of material fact"
  - "improper summary judgment analysis"
  - "Stevenson v. Stevenson summary judgment"
  - "summary judgment material facts"
---
# Summary Judgment - Material Facts

### **ChatGPT (AI) Analysis**

Yes, multiple material facts were in dispute at the time of the summary judgment motion in *Stevenson v. Stevenson*, despite the judge’s conclusion to the contrary. Below is a comprehensive itemization of the disputed material facts, based on both the hearing transcript and the summary judgment order:

### **1. Allegations of Abuse and Criminal Conduct**

**Disputed Fact**: Whether Craig Stevenson was ever abusive (physically, emotionally, sexually) toward Renee or Marie.

- **Plaintiffs’ Position**: Craig denied all abuse, and Renee and Lisa denied making any such claims to Sean prior to the lawsuit. Marie denied ever expressing fear of Craig.
- **Defendants’ Position**: Defendants relied on Renee’s and Lisa’s prior statements and opinions that suggested concern for Marie’s safety.
- **Materiality**: These factual disputes go to the core of whether Defendants’ statements were false and defamatory, and whether they implied criminal conduct such as domestic abuse or false imprisonment.

### **2. Statements Implying Craig Was “Capable of Murder”**

**Disputed Fact**: Whether Sean’s statements that his mother feared Craig was capable of murder implied an actual threat or accusation of criminal behavior.

- **Plaintiffs’ Position**: Viewed as assertions of fact implying Craig was dangerous and had a criminal disposition.
- **Defendants’ Position**: Characterized the statements as true statements of Renee’s opinion or past fear, and thus not defamatory.
- **Materiality**: Directly relevant to the element of falsity and defamatory meaning in defamation per se.

### **3. False Imprisonment of [Craig’s daughter]**

**Disputed Fact**: Whether Renee’s email implied that Craig was falsely imprisoning his [daughter].

- **Plaintiffs’ Position**: Asserted Renee implied a criminal offense by suggesting [Craig’s daughter] was confined and controlled.
- **Defendants’ Position**: Claimed it was commentary on [Craig’s daughter’s] dependency and a critique of parenting, not a criminal allegation.
- **Materiality**: Goes to whether the statement accused Craig of a crime (false imprisonment), meeting the standard for defamation per se.

### **4. Accusations of Theft**

**Disputed Fact**: Whether Sean’s claim that Craig had “stolen” from Renee was substantially true or falsely accused Craig of a crime.

- **Plaintiffs’ Position**: Asserted that no theft occurred, and the statement was defamatory.
- **Defendants’ Position**: Claimed that even if inaccurate, it was substantially true or a reasonable inference based on facts (e.g., coin incident).
- **Materiality**: Central to whether the theft accusation was a false statement of fact and defamatory per se.

### **5. Emotional Distress Caused by Letters to [Marie’s Father]**

**Disputed Fact**: Whether Sean’s letters to [Marie’s father] were directed at Marie with the intent to cause her severe emotional distress.

- **Plaintiffs’ Position**: Argued the letters were a deliberate campaign of harassment, known to have triggered Marie’s trauma.
- **Defendants’ Position**: Claimed the letters were directed at [Marie’s father], not Marie, and were protected speech.
- **Materiality**: Essential to Marie’s IIED claim, including intent, outrageousness, and causation of severe distress.

### **6. Plaintiffs’ Reputational Harm and Audience Reception**

**Disputed Fact**: Whether third parties (e.g., [Craig’s daughters, Marie’s brother]) actually believed and were influenced by Defendants’ statements.

- **Plaintiffs’ Position**: Provided declarations and deposition excerpts showing family members interpreted the statements as allegations of danger, abuse, or crime.
- **Defendants’ Position**: Argued recipients did not believe the statements or understand them as defamatory.
- **Materiality**: Impacts both the defamation and IIED claims by bearing on injury, third-party understanding, and causation.

### **7. The Substantial Truth or Falsity of Defendants’ Statements**

**Disputed Fact**: Whether the events described by Defendants (e.g., abuse, confinement, book writing) were true, partially true, or fabricated.

- **Plaintiffs’ Position**: Denied the truth of key factual assertions and submitted evidence contradicting them.
- **Defendants’ Position**: Argued their statements were either true, substantially true, or expressions of opinion.
- **Materiality**: Core to the falsity element of all defamation claims.

### **8. Degree of Collaboration Among Defendants (Conspiracy Claim)**

**Disputed Fact**: Whether Sean, Renee, Lisa, and Ashley acted in concert to defame and harass Plaintiffs.

- **Plaintiffs’ Position**: Cited coordinated communications and temporal proximity of calls and emails as evidence of conspiracy.
- **Defendants’ Position**: Argued there was no evidence of agreement or joint action.
- **Materiality**: Pertinent to the conspiracy claim.

These factual disputes were not merely collateral; they were central to the elements of defamation per se, IIED, and civil conspiracy. By resolving these disputes on summary judgment, the court appears to have invaded the jury’s role as the finder of fact.

Summary judgment was improperly granted in *Stevenson v. Stevenson* because the record revealed numerous genuine disputes of material fact on essential elements of the plaintiffs’ claims—particularly defamation per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and civil conspiracy. The district court’s order improperly resolved factual disputes, drew inferences against the nonmoving party, and failed to apply the proper legal standard governing summary judgment under *DLH, Inc. v. Russ*, 566 N.W.2d 60 (Minn. 1997).

Below is a structured legal argument explaining why summary judgment should not have been granted:

## **I. Standard for Summary Judgment Was Misapplied**

Under Minn. R. Civ. P. 56 and *DLH, Inc.*, summary judgment is appropriate only when:

1. There is **no genuine issue of material fact**; and
2. The moving party is **entitled to judgment as a matter of law**.

On summary judgment, a court must:

- View the evidence in the **light most favorable** to the nonmoving party;
- **Not weigh evidence** or assess witness credibility;
- Deny summary judgment if **reasonable persons could draw different conclusions** on any essential element.

The district court failed on all three fronts.

## **II. Disputed Facts Precluded Summary Judgment on Defamation Per Se**

### **A. Defamatory Meaning and Imputation of Crime Were Fact Questions**

The court determined as a matter of law that no statements could reasonably imply the commission of a crime. This usurped the jury’s role.

However, plaintiffs provided admissible evidence that:

- Defendants’ statements were interpreted by third parties (e.g., [Craig’s daughters, Marie’s brother]) as alleging **domestic abuse, false imprisonment, or even attempted murder**;
- Sean stated his mother believed Craig was “quite capable of murdering us both,” that Marie was “in danger,” and that “Craig planned to kill us both”;
- Renee implied [Craig’s daughter] was being **confined** by Craig and unable to leave the house without his permission;
- Sean described Craig as having **stolen from and betrayed** Renee.

These statements—when viewed in context and through the lens of how a reasonable listener would interpret them—could **imply criminal conduct**, thereby satisfying the standard for defamation per se. See *Ernster v. Eltgroth*, 182 N.W. 709, 710 (Minn. 1921); *Larson v. R.B. Wrigley Co.*, 235 N.W. 393 (Minn. 1931); *Longbehn v. Schoenrock*, 727 N.W.2d 153 (Minn. App. 2007).

Whether these communications imputed crimes was a **triable fact issue**. The district court resolved it as a legal issue by narrowly parsing each phrase and ignoring their cumulative defamatory import and audience effect.

### **B. Falsity and Substantial Truth Were Fact Questions**

The court found that Sean’s “stolen from” allegation was substantially true. Yet:

- Craig denied ever stealing from Renee;
- Renee denied making many of the statements Sean attributed to her;
- Lisa denied ever discussing Marie’s safety with Sean.

These contradictions created classic credibility disputes that could not be resolved on summary judgment. See *McKee v. Laurion*, 825 N.W.2d 725, 731 (Minn. 2013) (truth or falsity of allegedly defamatory statements is a jury question).

### **C. Third-Party Understanding Was Hotly Disputed**

Contrary to the judge’s conclusion, the plaintiffs presented evidence that:

- [Craig’s daughters], and other family members understood the statements as **implying criminal and abusive conduct**;
- Defendants themselves admitted to concerns that Craig might hurt Marie;
- Sean explicitly relied on statements allegedly made by Lisa and Renee as “truth” rather than opinion.

The audience’s understanding of the message is an essential element of defamation per se and cannot be decided as a matter of law. See *McKee*, 825 N.W.2d at 730.

## **III. Summary Judgment Was Improper on the IIED Claim**

### **A. Whether Sean’s Conduct Was “Extreme and Outrageous” Is a Fact Issue**

The judge held that Sean’s conduct—sending defamatory letters to Marie’s estranged and abusive father—was not outrageous “as a matter of law.” But the record showed:

- Sean knew Marie had a history of trauma related to her father;
- Sean sent **three letters**, even after Marie suffered a **panic attack** from the first;
- These letters **misrepresented Marie’s situation**, suggesting she was in danger from Craig;
- Plaintiffs submitted **expert psychological reports** and **videos** documenting Marie’s distress.

Whether conduct is “so atrocious that it passes the boundaries of decency” (*Dornfeld v. Oberg*, 503 N.W.2d 115, 117 (Minn. 1993)) is generally a question for the jury. Courts routinely deny summary judgment in IIED cases involving targeted harassment or knowledge of the plaintiff’s unique vulnerabilities. See *Bhama v. Bhama*, 169 Mich. App. 73, 81–82 (1988); *Roelcke v. Zip Aviation*, 2020 NY Slip Op 31279(U).

### **B. The Conduct Was “Directed At” Marie**

The court found the conduct was not “directed at” Marie because the letters were mailed to [Marie’s father]. But Sean:

- Knew that the letters would be relayed back to Marie;
- Sent follow-up communications after knowing Marie was affected;
- Used [Marie’s father] as an indirect instrument to harm Marie.

A reasonable jury could conclude that Sean’s conduct was **deliberately aimed at Marie**, satisfying the “directed at” standard. See *Hatch v. Davis*, 147 P.3d 383, 389 (Utah 2006).

## **IV. Summary Judgment on Civil Conspiracy Was Premature**

The court dismissed the conspiracy claim solely because it dismissed the underlying torts. This reasoning collapses if any tort claims survive.

Additionally, the plaintiffs submitted evidence of:

- Coordinated three-way communications among Sean, Lisa, and Renee;
- Synchronization of defamatory statements and follow-up actions;
- Prior hostility and planning indicating concerted conduct.

Whether defendants had an agreement to commit tortious acts is a **fact issue**. See *Harding v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co.*, 41 N.W.2d 818, 824 (Minn. 1950).

## **V. The Judge Improperly Weighed Evidence and Drew Inferences**

Throughout the ruling, the court:

- Treated Defendants’ version of events as established fact;
- Imposed implausible interpretations on Plaintiffs’ evidence;
- Weighed credibility, despite contradictions in deposition testimony;
- Ignored competing inferences about the meaning and purpose of Defendants’ communications.

This is a textbook violation of Rule 56. See *Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.*, 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986); *DLH, Inc.*, 566 N.W.2d at 70.

## **Conclusion**

The Court improperly granted summary judgment by disregarding extensive evidence of material factual disputes central to the claims of defamation per se, IIED, and conspiracy. Plaintiffs submitted:

- Factual contradictions,
- Competing interpretations,
- Witness testimony and documentary evidence,
- Expert opinions and medical records.

Each of these warranted jury resolution. The order should be reversed, and the matter remanded for trial on all claims.

ChatGPT 4.o

## Background and Original AI Query - Click to View

Plaintiffs used Artificial Intelligence (AI) to analyze whether disputed material facts existed at the time of Judge Miller’s June 16, 2023 summary judgment order. The specific AI query was:

> I have uploaded the March 15, 2023 hearing transcript and Judge Miller’s June 16, 2023 summary judgment order.
> 
>  Based on the judge’s order and the hearing transcript, were there any material facts in dispute. If so, itemize each one.

Judge Miller’s reliance on the presence or absence of genuine issues of material fact in deciding claims at summary judgment is clear, since the term “material fact” is used frequently in his summary judgment orders. However, the phrase is used only **once** in Plaintiffs’ 33-page summary judgment order, as part of a boilerplate case law citation, but is never actually applied:

> Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows that there is no genuine issue of **material fact** and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. *Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC*, 705 N.W.2d 746, 753 (Minn. 2005).

(Doc. 429, at 13.) (emphasis added)

However, in the 34 *other* summary judgment orders issued by Judge Miller, totaling 188 pages, the phrase “material fact” appears 113 times. (Includes “material fact”, “material facts”, and “material factual”.) In all cases *except Plaintiffs’ case*, the presence or absence of genuine issues of material fact was quite important to Judge Miller when applying the summary judgment standard.

![Summary Judgment Orders Material Fact](https://justice-denied.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Summary-Judgment-Orders-Material-Fact.png "Summary Judgment Orders - Material Fact")

Plaintiffs prepared a table that shows Judge Miller’s various summary judgment orders, along with the length of each order and how many times the phrase “material fact” was used in each order:

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

1

6/29/2018

*Credit Acceptance Corp. vs Norma M Carlson*

4

1

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

2

9/10/2018

*Axia Contracting, LLC vs Jon Grefsrud, Linda Grefsrud, Noble Finance, LLC, Mark's Electric, Inc., Minnesota National Bank et. al.*

9

8

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

3

11/19/2018

*National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-4, a Delaware Statutory Trust vs Megan R Mayer*

3

1

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

4

1/3/2019

*Dustin Evenson vs Arvig Enterprises, Inc., Chase Rydberg*

13

9

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

5

1/7/2019

*Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC vs David Randall*

3

2

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

6

1/15/2019

*Brian Azure vs Jennie Bucholz*

5

7

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

7

4/15/2019

*ACUITY, a Mutual Insurance Company vs Reno Wizards LLC*

4

1

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

8

5/20/2019

*Unifund CCR Partners vs Paul C Enger*

3

1

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

9

5/24/2019

*Unifund CCR, LLC vs Earl Ross*

3

1

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

10

6/10/2019

*Citibank, N.A. vs Robert Hed*

2

1

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

11

7/15/2019

*Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. vs Daniel J Berger*

2

1

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

12

9/16/2019

*First Resolution Investment Corp. vs Wade D. Pederson*

3

1

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

13

10/3/2019

*Absolute Resolutions Investments, LLC vs Jerome S Dahlen*

3

1

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

14

10/23/2019

*Citibank, N.A. vs Kevin Lepinski*

2

1

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

15

12/9/2019

*Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC vs Jeremy Crice*

3

2

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

16

1/21/2020

*Phillip Kaste, Amanda Kaste vs The Rusty Nail, Inc., dba The Rusty Nail, Stellas, LLC, Sara Marie Boyum, Nathan Paul Boyum, Individually and Jointly*

12

9

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

17

1/27/2020

*Discover Bank vs Stacey Jo Dykhoff*

3

1

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

18

5/18/2020

*Ryan Carey, Plaintiffs, vs Clay County, Minnesota, Defendant*

19

10

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

19

5/21/2020

*Unifund CCR, LLC vs Connie M Quaal*

3

1

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

20

6/11/2020

*Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC vs Brian T Puttonen*

2

1

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

21

7/8/2020

*Absolute Resolutions Investments, LLC vs Richard P Hoffman*

3

1

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

22

9/8/2020

*Cecilie Schumacher-Cookman, DuWayne Cookman vs Lorene Schumacher*

15

9

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

23

11/23/2020

*Bank of America, N.A. vs David L Buelow*

3

1

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

24

12/28/2020

*Department Stores National Bank (DSNB) vs Patricia A Holmquist*

2

1

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

25

2/16/2021

*Robert Norman Langlie, Teri Jo Langlie vs Schepper Custom Builders Inc.*

5

8

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

26

3/4/2021

*Citibank, N.A. vs. Andrew J Muller*

2

1

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

27

3/22/2021

*Brenda Becker and Troy Drewes vs. Estate of Edward Schenatzki, Dairyland Insurance Company*

6

5

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

28

5/20/2021

*The First National Bank of Henning v. Barry A. Fabian, Lori A. Fabian, and B.A. Fabian Farms, LLC*

7

3

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

29

7/8/2021

*AgCountry Farm Credit Services PCA v. Wayland State Bank*

9

10

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

30

11/12/2021

*D & T Country Stay Boarding & Grooming vs David Maanum*

26

11

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

31

11/19/2021

*Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. vs Eric Lambert*

2

1

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

32

5/26/2022

*Midland Credit Management, Inc vs Emily Meyer*

2

0

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

33

3/20/2023

*Mickelson-Pribbernow, Inc. vs Pankratz Trucking & Excavating, LLC*

3

1

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

**34**

**6/16/2023**

***Craig Stevenson, Marie Stevenson vs Sean Stevenson, Renee Stevenson, Lisa Stevenson-Allen, Ashley Anderson***

**33**

**1**

Case  
#

Date

Case Title

Pages

“Material Fact”  
Used

35

9/14/2023

*Wells Fargo Bank, NA vs Tyler Drechsel*

2

1

All of Judge Miller’s summary judgment orders for simple cases required 4 pages or less. In these orders, the phrase “material fact” appears 0, 1, or 2 times, with the vast majority using the phrase once. As logic would suggest, more complex cases required more pages, and there were many more instances of the phrase in these orders. There is only one exception: Plaintiffs’ case, where the phrase “material fact” appears only once in the 33-page order.

A closer examination of Judge Miller’s use of the phrase “material fact” in each of his summary judgment orders reveals the following:

![Summary Judgment Orders Material Fact Chart](https://justice-denied.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Summary-Judgment-Orders-Material-Fact-Chart.png "Summary Judgment Orders - Material Fact Chart")

Judge Miller’s summary judgment orders over the course of this approximately five-year period are remarkably consistent. In general, less complicated summary judgment orders use the phrase “material fact” a minimum of one time for every four pages (25%). The use of the phrase in more complicated orders (5 pages or more) ranges between 42% and 160%, with one notable exception: Plaintiffs’ case at 3%. In summary judgment orders of 8 pages or greater in length, Judge Miller used the terms “material fact”, “material facts”, or “material factual” a total of 67 times – **once** in Plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment Order and **66 times** in the other 7 orders. The summary judgment order for Plaintiffs’ case was 33 pages, making it the longest and most complicated order by a good margin. However, the term “material fact” was used only once, and was never actually applied in the order itself.

## AI Analysis

Plaintiffs used Artificial Intelligence (AI) to determine whether Judge Miller’s summary judgment order was unusual in this respect. The specific query was:

> What is the significance that Judge Kevin Miller, a Minnesota district court judge, used the phrase “material fact”, “material facts”, or “material factual” once in a citation in Plaintiffs’ 33-page summary judgment order, but in his 34 other summary judgment orders, totaling 188 pages, the phrase appears 113 times?

### **ChatGPT (AI) Analysis**

The significant disparity in Judge Kevin Miller’s usage of the phrase “material fact” (or its variations) in Plaintiffs’ summary judgment order compared to his other 34 summary judgment orders raises several potential concerns:

1. **Deviation from Established Judicial Pattern** – If Judge Miller consistently used the phrase “material fact” to assess whether disputes of fact existed in previous summary judgment rulings, but omitted it in Plaintiffs’ case (except for a single citation), it suggests an irregularity in his analysis. Summary judgment rulings hinge on whether a material fact is in dispute; avoiding this language could indicate an attempt to downplay the existence of factual disputes.
2. **Potential Bias or Prejudgment** – The absence of a thorough discussion on material facts in Plaintiffs’ order might suggest an intention to grant summary judgment despite the presence of genuine disputes. If this omission contrasts with his usual approach, it could indicate an unfair or inconsistent application of legal standards.
3. **Failure to Properly Apply Summary Judgment Standards** – Under Minnesota and federal law, summary judgment should only be granted when there is no genuine dispute of material fact. The omission of such analysis in Plaintiffs’ case could mean the court did not properly evaluate whether material facts were in dispute before ruling.
4. **Possible Influence or External Factors** – If external pressures or biases influenced the decision, the absence of a standard discussion of material facts could suggest an effort to justify a predetermined outcome rather than a fair application of legal principles.
5. **Grounds for Appeal or Reconsideration** – A pattern of consistent language in other orders but a stark departure in Plaintiffs’ case could support an argument for judicial inconsistency. This could be used as evidence of an arbitrary or capricious ruling, potentially providing grounds for appeal or reconsideration.

In summary, this discrepancy suggests that Judge Miller may have applied different legal reasoning or scrutiny in Plaintiffs’ case compared to his usual approach, raising concerns about fairness, impartiality, and adherence to the appropriate legal standards.

ChatGPT 4.o

![AI Bias 09](https://justice-denied.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/AI-Bias-09.png "AI Bias -09")