13 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1915–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hoffman v. Ford Motor Co.green2 sentences2011In Hoffman , the court of appeals stated: “[T]o be sufficient in content, a spoliation notice must reasonably notify the recipient of a breach or a claim.” Id. at 70 . 2011See, e.g., Hoffman, 587 N.W.2d at 70 (holding that a party may avoid sanctions for spoliation by giving notice of a breach or a claim); Smothers v. Ins. | 2 | 2 |
Sloggy v. Crescent Creamery Co.green2 sentences2002See Despatch Oven Co. v. *74 Rauenhorst, 229 Minn. 436, 447 , 40 N.W.2d 73, 80 (1949) (affirming judgment against party who could demonstrate only nominal damages arising from alleged breach of contract); Sloggy v. Crescent Creamery Co., 72 Minn. 316, 317-18 , 75 N.W. 225, 226 (1898) (affirming dismissal of breach-of-contract claim where party could not demonstrate that damages arose from breach). 2002See Despatch Oven Co. v. *74 Rauenhorst, 229 Minn. 436, 447 , 40 N.W.2d 73, 80 (1949) (affirming judgment against party who could demonstrate only nominal damages arising from alleged breach of contract); Sloggy v. Crescent Creamery Co., 72 Minn. 316, 317-18 , 75 N.W. 225, 226 (1898) (affirming dismissal of breach-of-contract claim where party could not demonstrate that damages arose from breach). | 1 | 1 |
Despatch Oven Co. v. Rauenhorstgreen2 sentences2002See Despatch Oven Co. v. *74 Rauenhorst, 229 Minn. 436, 447 , 40 N.W.2d 73, 80 (1949) (affirming judgment against party who could demonstrate only nominal damages arising from alleged breach of contract); Sloggy v. Crescent Creamery Co., 72 Minn. 316, 317-18 , 75 N.W. 225, 226 (1898) (affirming dismissal of breach-of-contract claim where party could not demonstrate that damages arose from breach). 2002See Despatch Oven Co. v. *74 Rauenhorst, 229 Minn. 436, 447 , 40 N.W.2d 73, 80 (1949) (affirming judgment against party who could demonstrate only nominal damages arising from alleged breach of contract); Sloggy v. Crescent Creamery Co., 72 Minn. 316, 317-18 , 75 N.W. 225, 226 (1898) (affirming dismissal of breach-of-contract claim where party could not demonstrate that damages arose from breach). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Knutson v. Haugen
neutral
2 sentences1979Knutson v. Haugen, 191 Minn. 420 , 254 N.W. 464 . 1979Knutson v. Haugen, 191 Minn. 420 , 254 N.W. 464 . | 3 | 1944–1979 |
Stroud v. Hennepin County Medical Center
green
2 sentences2024In Stroud, we considered an affidavit that included the following opinion on causation and nothing more: “I . . . will testify that as a result of the breach of the standard of care . . . there was a failure to diagnose and treat a subarachnoid hemorrhage which ultimately resulted in a complicated hospital course and death of the Plaintiff.” 556 N.W.2d at 554 . 2000In that case the plaintiff, as trustee for the heirs of the deceased, provided an affidavit of expert identification which stated in pertinent part, “I, Dr. Tre-dal, will testify that as a result of the breach of the standard of care * * * there was a failure to diagnose and treat a sub-arachnoid hemorrhage which ultimately resulted in a complicated hospital course and death of the [deceased].” Id. at 554 . | 2 | 2000–2024 |
Richardson v. State
neutral
2 sentences1979Breach or violation of that duty by the father of an illegitimate child likewise is continuing in nature, People v. Stanley, 33 Cal.App. 624 , 166 P. 596 ; Richardson v. State, 30 Del. (7 Boyce) 534 , 109 A. 124 , the same as in the case of the father of a legitimate child. 1979Breach or violation of that duty by the father of an illegitimate child likewise is continuing in nature, People v. Stanley, 33 Cal.App. 624 , 166 P. 596 ; Richardson v. State, 30 Del. (7 Boyce) 534 , 109 A. 124 , the same as in the case of the father of a legitimate child. | 2 | 1979–1979 |
People v. Stanley
green
2 sentences1979Breach or violation of that duty by the father of an illegitimate child likewise is continuing in nature, People v. Stanley, 33 Cal.App. 624 , 166 P. 596 ; Richardson v. State, 30 Del. (7 Boyce) 534 , 109 A. 124 , the same as in the case of the father of a legitimate child. 1979Breach or violation of that duty by the father of an illegitimate child likewise is continuing in nature, People v. Stanley, 33 Cal.App. 624 , 166 P. 596 ; Richardson v. State, 30 Del. (7 Boyce) 534 , 109 A. 124 , the same as in the case of the father of a legitimate child. | 2 | 1979–1979 |
Boos v. Byrnes
green
2 sentences1979Breach or violation of that duty by the father of an illegitimate child likewise is continuing in nature, People v. Stanley, 33 Cal.App. 624 , 166 P. 596 ; Richardson v. State, 30 Del. (7 Boyce) 534 , 109 A. 124 , the same as in the case of the father of a legitimate child. 1979Breach or violation of that duty by the father of an illegitimate child likewise is continuing in nature, People v. Stanley, 33 Cal.App. 624 , 166 P. 596 ; Richardson v. State, 30 Del. (7 Boyce) 534 , 109 A. 124 , the same as in the case of the father of a legitimate child. | 2 | 1979–1979 |
Rer v. Jg
green
2 sentences2026We also noted that “[e]quity seeks to restore the plaintiff to the position he or she occupied before the breach or to claim the defendant’s ill-gotten profits for the plaintiff.” Id. 2026We held that the R.E.R. plaintiff could “not recover damages for emotional distress and economic losses because the remedies he [sought were] not equitable in nature.” Id. at 31 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Fritz v. Warthen
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Campbell v. Valley State Agency
green
1 sentence1991Here, Winter-Prom’s duty was no greater than accomplishing what appellants specifically instructed it to do. 1 In Campbell v. Valley State Agency, 407 N.W.2d 109 (Minn.App.1987), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. July 22, 1987), we recognized that an insurance agent may have legal duty beyond that specifically undertaken *189 by the agent. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Cornfeldt v. Tongen
green
1 sentence1984The standards to be used in determining whether an expert should be allowed to testify as to a particular matter were set forth in Cornfeldt v. Tongen, 262 N.W.2d 684 (Minn.1977). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Stockley v. Benedict
neutral
2 sentences1915Briefs, 956; Mutual Assurance Co. v. Holt, 29 Va. 612 ; Stockly v. Benedict, 92 Md. 325 , 48 Atl. 59 . 1915Briefs, 956; Mutual Assurance Co. v. Holt, 29 Va. 612 ; Stockly v. Benedict, 92 Md. 325 , 48 Atl. 59 . | 1 | 1915–1915 |
Mutual Assur. Society v. Holt
neutral
1 sentence1915Briefs, 956; Mutual Assurance Co. v. Holt, 29 Va. 612 ; Stockly v. Benedict, 92 Md. 325 , 48 Atl. 59 . | 1 | 1915–1915 |
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.