prudent person inquiry (Minnesota) · Go Syfert
← Minnesota issues

prudent person inquiry in Minnesota

14 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2017 0 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
B. W. & Leo Harris Co. v. City of Hastingsgreen
minn · 1953 · cited in 7 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1976–2010
2 sentences

1992It cannot be equivocal or ambiguous but must be of a character which would put a prudent person on inquiry. 274 Minn, at 179, 143 N.W.2d at 225 (quoting B.W. & Leo Harris Co. v. City of Hastings, 240 Minn. 44, 49 , 59 N.W.2d 813, 816 (1953)).

1992It cannot be equivocal or ambiguous but must be of a character which would put a prudent person on inquiry. 274 Minn, at 179, 143 N.W.2d at 225 (quoting B.W. & Leo Harris Co. v. City of Hastings, 240 Minn. 44, 49 , 59 N.W.2d 813, 816 (1953)).

57
Alderman's Inc. v. Shanksgreen
minn · 1995 · cited in 2 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2002–2017
2 sentences

2017The difference between negligence and negligence per se is that in the latter theory, “a statutory duty of care is substituted for the ordinary prudent person standard such that a violation of a statute is conclusive evidence of duty and breach.” Id. (quotation omitted). “[B]reach of a statute gives rise to negligence per se if [(1)] the person harmed by [the statutory violation is] within the intended protection of the statute and [(2)] the harm suffered is of the type the legislation was intended to prevent.” Alderman’s Inc. v. Shanks, 536 N.W.2d 4, 8 (Minn. 1995) (quotation omitted).

2017Because the statute “imposes a fixed duty of care, . . . its breach constitutes conclusive evidence of negligence.” Id.

22
Seim Ex Rel. Seim v. Garavaliagreen
minn · 1981 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
1 sentence

2002See, e.g., Alderman’s, Inc. v. Shanks, 536 N.W.2d 4, 7-10 (Minn.1995) (addressing fire codes specifically); Seim v. Garavalia, 306 N.W.2d 806, 810 (Minn.1981) (explaining negligence per se). 4 .

11
Butler v. Minneapolis Police Relief Associationgreen
minn · 1969 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
2 sentences

1996It is well settled that “the law in force when the claim to a pension arises governs the right to the pension.” Butler v. Minneapolis Police Relief Ass’n, 283 Minn. 70, 72 , 166 N.W.2d 705, 706 (1969) (quoting State ex rel.

1996It is well settled that “the law in force when the claim to a pension arises governs the right to the pension.” Butler v. Minneapolis Police Relief Ass’n, 283 Minn. 70, 72 , 166 N.W.2d 705, 706 (1969) (quoting State ex rel.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Township of Sterling v. Griffin green
minn · 1976
2 sentences

2003But, the court added, possession cannot “fall below that which will put a prudent person on inquiry.” Id.

1984This evidence satisfies the MTA standard because the Township’s possession was “of a character which would put a prudent person on inquiry.” Id. at 236 , 244 N.W.2d at 133 (quoting B.W. & Leo Harris Co. v. City of Hastings, 240 Minn. 44, 49 , 59 N.W.2d 813, 817 (1953)). 2.

41984–2003
Gradjelick v. Hance green
minn · 2002
2 sentences

2012The difference between ordinary negligence and negligence per se is that in negligence per se, a statutory duty of care is substituted for the ordinary prudent person standard “such that a violation of a statute ... is conclusive evidence of duty and breach.” Gradjelick v. Hance, 646 N.W.2d 225 , 231 n. 3 (Minn.2002).

2005"A per se negligence rule substitutes a statutory standard of *190 care for the ordinary prudent person standard of care, such that a violation of a statute * * * is conclusive evidence of duty and breach." Gradjelick v. Hance, 646 N.W.2d 225 , 231 n. 3 (Minn.2002).

22005–2012
CAROGA REALTY COMPANY v. Tapper green
minn · 1966
2 sentences

2010Caroga Realty Co., 274 Minn. at 178 , 143 N.W.2d at 225 (quoting B.W. & Leo Harris Co. v. City of Hastings, 240 Minn. 44, 49 , 59 N.W.2d 813, 816-17 (1953)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

1992It cannot be equivocal or ambiguous but must be of a character which would put a prudent person on inquiry. 274 Minn, at 179, 143 N.W.2d at 225 (quoting B.W. & Leo Harris Co. v. City of Hastings, 240 Minn. 44, 49 , 59 N.W.2d 813, 816 (1953)).

21992–2010
Wichelman v. Messner green
minn · 1957
2 sentences

1966It cannot be equivocal or ambiguous but must be of a character which would put a prudent person on inquiry.” See, also, Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88 , 83 N. W. (2d) 800 , 71 A. L.

1966It cannot be equivocal or ambiguous but must be of a character which would put a prudent person on inquiry.” See, also, Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88 , 83 N. W. (2d) 800 , 71 A. L.

21966–1985
Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co. green
minn · 2012
1 sentence

2017The difference between negligence and negligence per se is that in the latter theory, “a statutory duty of care is substituted for the ordinary prudent person standard such that a violation of a statute is conclusive evidence of duty and breach.” Id. (quotation omitted). “[B]reach of a statute gives rise to negligence per se if [(1)] the person harmed by [the statutory violation is] within the intended protection of the statute and [(2)] the harm suffered is of the type the legislation was intended to prevent.” Alderman’s Inc. v. Shanks, 536 N.W.2d 4, 8 (Minn. 1995) (quotation omitted).

12017–2017

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MN § Minn. Stat. § 541.023 (9) MN § Minn. Stat. § 160.05 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

NY 25 (1905–2026) CA 17 (1942–2026) MN 14 (1966–2017) IL 14 (1873–2009) SD 11 (1973–2025) TX 10 (1921–2021) MI 8 (1919–2017) ND 6 (1964–2015) NE 5 (1995–2024) LA 5 (1938–1986) TN 5 (1945–2013) OK 4 (1942–2017) MT 4 (1894–2021) WA 4 (1945–1999) KY 4 (1930–1978) SC 3 (1921–1938) MO 3 (1903–1998) NC 3 (1991–2012) AL 2 (1983–1984) OH 2 (2012–2024) AZ 2 (1950–2016) DC 2 (1991–2011)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check