Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
22 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Balder v. Haleygreen2 sentences2004Balder v. Haley, 399 N.W.2d 77, 81 (Minn.1987). 2003Balder v. Haley, 399 N.W.2d 77, 81 (Minn.1987). | 5 | 6 |
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co.green2 sentences2012Germann, 395 N.W.2d at 924 . 2012Pouliot, 582 N.W.2d at 224 ; Germann, 395 N.W.2d at 924-25 . | 1 | 2 |
Ralph M. Johnson v. Niagara MacHine & Tool Works, a New York Corporationgreen2 sentences1993The court explained that “an issue as to the adequacy of a warning necessarily presupposes that the operator had read the warning.” Id. 1992Although there is no Minnesota case which specifically holds that the adequacy of a warning cannot be reviewed without a showing of reliance on the warning, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that “an issue as to the adequacy of a warning necessarily presupposes that the operator has read the warning.” Johnson v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, 666 F.2d 1223, 1225 (8th Cir.1981). | 1 | 2 |
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.green2 sentences1991As a rule, courts allow preemption of state tort claims in cases where a state law creates a “state imposed regulatory scheme superimposed on the federal scheme.” Forster, 437 N.W.2d at 659 (holding that state tort claims based on a state-imposed duty to warn are impliedly preempted because they allow a state court to reevaluate the adequacy of the federal duty to warn in each case); see also Cippollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 789 F.2d 181 , 187 (3rd Cir.1986) (federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempts state damage actions which challenge the adequacy of the warnings or the propr 1989Reynolds relies on the leading case of Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 789 F.2d 181 (3d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1043 , 107 S.Ct. 907 , 93 L.Ed.2d 857 (1987), which holds that the federal Act preempts those state tort claims “that challenge either the adequacy of the warning on cigarette packages or the propriety of a party’s actions with respect to the advertising and promotion of cigarettes.” Id. at 187 (citation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Garibaldigreen1 sentence2024See State v. Garibaldi, 726 N.W.2d 823 , 826–31 (Minn. App. 2007) (collecting cases). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pilchergreen2 sentences2016Farnsworth, 738 N.W.2d at 373 ; State v. Pilcher, 472 N.W.2d 327, 333 (Minn. 1991). 2016In determining whether a defendant’s statement was voluntary, we consider the nature of the interview, including its length, the adequacy of warnings, whether the defendant’s physical needs were met, and whether the defendant was denied access to friends., Farnsworth, 738 N.W.2d at 373 ; State v. Pilcher, 472 N.W.2d 327, 333 (Minn.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Henning v. Union Pacific Railroadgreen1 sentence2014R.R., 530 F.3d 1206, 1216 (10th Cir. 2008) (holding that inadequacy-of-warning claim preempted despite 2007 amendment); see also Zimmerman v. Norfolk S. Corp., 706 F. 3d 170, 188-93 (3rd Cir. 2013) (holding tort claim that railroad failed to maintain warning sign not preempted, but inadequacy-of-warning-sign claim preempted). | 1 | 1 |
Robert Zimmerman v. Norfolk Southern Corporationgreen1 sentence2014R.R., 530 F.3d 1206, 1216 (10th Cir. 2008) (holding that inadequacy-of-warning claim preempted despite 2007 amendment); see also Zimmerman v. Norfolk S. Corp., 706 F. 3d 170, 188-93 (3rd Cir. 2013) (holding tort claim that railroad failed to maintain warning sign not preempted, but inadequacy-of-warning-sign claim preempted). | 1 | 1 |
Dahlbeck v. DICO Co., Inc.green1 sentence2011Dahlbeck v. DICO Co., 355 N.W.2d 157, 163 (Minn.App.1984), review denied (Minn. Feb. 6, 1985). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hintongreen1 sentence2010See State v. Hinton, 702 N.W.2d 278, 281-82 (Minn.App.2005) (applying harmless-error test), review denied (Minn. Oct. 26, 2005); see also State v. Wright, 679 N.W.2d 186 (Minn.App.2004) (stipulating to element of age), review denied (Minn. June 29, 2004). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wrightgreen1 sentence2010See State v. Hinton, 702 N.W.2d 278, 281-82 (Minn.App.2005) (applying harmless-error test), review denied (Minn. Oct. 26, 2005); see also State v. Wright, 679 N.W.2d 186 (Minn.App.2004) (stipulating to element of age), review denied (Minn. June 29, 2004). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2009State v. Williams, 535 N.W.2d 277, 287 (Minn.1995). 2009State v. Williams, 535 N.W.2d 277, 287 (Minn.1995). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Camachogreen1 sentence2006State v. Camacho, 561 N.W.2d 160, 168 (Minn.1997). | 1 | 1 |
Augustine v. Hitzmangreen2 sentences1993See Augustine v. Hitzman, 287 Minn. 311, 314 , 178 N.W.2d 227, 229 (1970) (“A higher degree of care is required with respect to children than with respect to adults.”) After finding that the manufacturer had a duty to warn, “issues such as the adequacy of the warning, breach, and causation” are for the jury to resolve. 1993See Augustine v. Hitzman, 287 Minn. 311, 314 , 178 N.W.2d 227, 229 (1970) (“A higher degree of care is required with respect to children than with respect to adults.”) After finding that the manufacturer had a duty to warn, “issues such as the adequacy of the warning, breach, and causation” are for the jury to resolve. | 1 | 1 |
Forster v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.green1 sentence1991As a rule, courts allow preemption of state tort claims in cases where a state law creates a “state imposed regulatory scheme superimposed on the federal scheme.” Forster, 437 N.W.2d at 659 (holding that state tort claims based on a state-imposed duty to warn are impliedly preempted because they allow a state court to reevaluate the adequacy of the federal duty to warn in each case); see also Cippollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 789 F.2d 181 , 187 (3rd Cir.1986) (federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempts state damage actions which challenge the adequacy of the warnings or the propr | 1 | 1 |
Richard Leander Ferebee, Jr. v. Chevron Chemical Companygreen1 sentence1991Only one case, Ferebee v. Chevron Chemical Co., 736 F.2d 1529, 1541-42 (D.C.Cir.1984), has explicitly allowed state tort claims for damages arising from the failure to warn even though the actions create stricter standards under state law than the federal law required. | 1 | 1 |
Lindquist v. Tambrands, Inc.green1 sentence1991As a rule, courts allow preemption of state tort claims in cases where a state law creates a “state imposed regulatory scheme superimposed on the federal scheme.” Forster, 437 N.W.2d at 659 (holding that state tort claims based on a state-imposed duty to warn are impliedly preempted because they allow a state court to reevaluate the adequacy of the federal duty to warn in each case); see also Cippollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 789 F.2d 181 , 187 (3rd Cir.1986) (federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempts state damage actions which challenge the adequacy of the warnings or the propr | 1 | 1 |
cluster 372611green1 sentence1984The multitudes of switches offered by Cutler-Hammer could be used in many different ways. “[A] purchaser of multi-use equipment knows best the dangers associated with its particular use, and so it should determine the degree of safety provided.” Wagner v. International Harvester Co., 611 F.2d 224, 231 (8th Cir.1979). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 332474green1 sentence1984The adequacy of a warning “cannot be evaluated apart from the knowledge and expertise of those who may reasonably be expected to use or otherwise come in contact with the product....” Martinez v. Dixie Carriers, Inc., 529 F.2d 457, 465-66 (5th Cir.1976), cited with approval in Strong, 667 F.2d at 687 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Farnsworth
green
2 sentences2016Farnsworth, 738 N.W.2d at 373 ; State v. Pilcher, 472 N.W.2d 327, 333 (Minn. 1991). 2016In determining whether a defendant’s statement was voluntary, we consider the nature of the interview, including its length, the adequacy of warnings, whether the defendant’s physical needs were met, and whether the defendant was denied access to friends., Farnsworth, 738 N.W.2d at 373 ; State v. Pilcher, 472 N.W.2d 327, 333 (Minn.1991). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Needham
green
1 sentence2015The supreme court reasoned that “the focus of the omnibus hearing was on other issues relating to the taking of the confession” and that “[i]t was not until the prosecutor received the defendant’s omnibus hearing brief, filed simultaneously with the state’s brief, that the prosecutor could know that the defense was making an issue of the adequacy of the warning given defendant.” Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Pouliot v. Fitzsimmons
green
1 sentence2012Pouliot, 582 N.W.2d at 224 ; Germann, 395 N.W.2d at 924-25 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Dosdall v. Smith
green
2 sentences1992The trial court, citing Dosdall v. Smith, 415 N.W.2d 332 (Minn.App.1987), agreed that the adequacy of a warning is a jury question but concluded that this would become an issue only if Born had read or relied in any way on the warning. 1992The trial court, citing Dosdall v. Smith, 415 N.W.2d 332 (Minn.App.1987), agreed that the adequacy of a warning is a jury question but concluded that this would become an issue only if Born had read or relied in any way on the warning. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Linder
green
2 sentences1989Id. at 735 . 1989The standard for determining the adequacy of a waiver was outlined by this court in State v. Linder, 268 N.W.2d 734 (Minn.1978): In an ordinary case if the prosecutor shows that the warning was given and that defendant stated he understood his rights and then gave a statement, the state will be deemed to have met its burden of proof, unless there is other evidence indicating that there was no knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver. * * * However, if there is other such evidence, then the trial court must make a subjective factual inquiry to determine whether under the totality of the circu | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Martin County, Florida v. Makemson Et Al.; And Okeechobee County, Florida v. Dennis Et Al.
green
2 sentences1989Reynolds relies on the leading case of Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 789 F.2d 181 (3d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1043 , 107 S.Ct. 907 , 93 L.Ed.2d 857 (1987), which holds that the federal Act preempts those state tort claims “that challenge either the adequacy of the warning on cigarette packages or the propriety of a party’s actions with respect to the advertising and promotion of cigarettes.” Id. at 187 (citation omitted). 1989Reynolds relies on the leading case of Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 789 F.2d 181 (3d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1043 , 107 S.Ct. 907 , 93 L.Ed.2d 857 (1987), which holds that the federal Act preempts those state tort claims “that challenge either the adequacy of the warning on cigarette packages or the propriety of a party’s actions with respect to the advertising and promotion of cigarettes.” Id. at 187 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
green
1 sentence1989Reynolds relies on the leading case of Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 789 F.2d 181 (3d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1043 , 107 S.Ct. 907 , 93 L.Ed.2d 857 (1987), which holds that the federal Act preempts those state tort claims “that challenge either the adequacy of the warning on cigarette packages or the propriety of a party’s actions with respect to the advertising and promotion of cigarettes.” Id. at 187 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
California v. Prysock
green
2 sentences1989We need not decide the issue of the adequacy of the warning under California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 , 101 S.Ct. 2806 , 69 L.Ed.2d 696 (1981). 1989We need not decide the issue of the adequacy of the warning under California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 , 101 S.Ct. 2806 , 69 L.Ed.2d 696 (1981). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
cluster 398281
green
1 sentence1984The adequacy of a warning “cannot be evaluated apart from the knowledge and expertise of those who may reasonably be expected to use or otherwise come in contact with the product....” Martinez v. Dixie Carriers, Inc., 529 F.2d 457, 465-66 (5th Cir.1976), cited with approval in Strong, 667 F.2d at 687 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.