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.
13 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1889–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Serr v. Biwabik Concrete Aggregate Co.green1 sentence2024A party is not bound to return or tender money received under a fraudulent release where the adverse party pleads the release as a defense.” Serr v. Biwabik Concrete Aggregate Co., 278 N.W. 355, 365-66 (Minn. 1938) (emphasis omitted) (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Galarneaultgreen1 sentence1986“This statute modifies the more liberal release rule under Minn.R.Crim.P. 6.01.” State v. Galarneault, 354 N.W.2d 597, 599 (Minn.App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Vaccarigreen1 sentence1985Travelers, 310 Minn, at 101, 245 N.W.2d at 847. | 1 | 1 |
Schmidt v. Smithgreen2 sentences1976As we said in Schmidt v. Smith, 299 Minn. 103, 109 , 216 N. W. 2d 669, 673 (1974); and Jeffries v. Gillitzer, 302 Minn. 402, 406 , 225 N. W. 2d 17, 20 (1975): “While this court in proper cases continues to recognize and protect the right of a releasor to avoid the release of a claim for unknown injury when such release was not intended, it has also recognized that the evidence as to finality can be conclusive when the release is executed under circumstances evincing basic fairness and both releasor and releasee clearly indicate in the instrument an intent to release all claims for both known a 1976As we said in Schmidt v. Smith, 299 Minn. 103, 109 , 216 N. W. 2d 669, 673 (1974); and Jeffries v. Gillitzer, 302 Minn. 402, 406 , 225 N. W. 2d 17, 20 (1975): “While this court in proper cases continues to recognize and protect the right of a releasor to avoid the release of a claim for unknown injury when such release was not intended, it has also recognized that the evidence as to finality can be conclusive when the release is executed under circumstances evincing basic fairness and both releasor and releasee clearly indicate in the instrument an intent to release all claims for both known a | 1 | 1 |
Jeffries v. Gillitzergreen2 sentences1976As we said in Schmidt v. Smith, 299 Minn. 103, 109 , 216 N. W. 2d 669, 673 (1974); and Jeffries v. Gillitzer, 302 Minn. 402, 406 , 225 N. W. 2d 17, 20 (1975): “While this court in proper cases continues to recognize and protect the right of a releasor to avoid the release of a claim for unknown injury when such release was not intended, it has also recognized that the evidence as to finality can be conclusive when the release is executed under circumstances evincing basic fairness and both releasor and releasee clearly indicate in the instrument an intent to release all claims for both known a 1976As we said in Schmidt v. Smith, 299 Minn. 103, 109 , 216 N. W. 2d 669, 673 (1974); and Jeffries v. Gillitzer, 302 Minn. 402, 406 , 225 N. W. 2d 17, 20 (1975): “While this court in proper cases continues to recognize and protect the right of a releasor to avoid the release of a claim for unknown injury when such release was not intended, it has also recognized that the evidence as to finality can be conclusive when the release is executed under circumstances evincing basic fairness and both releasor and releasee clearly indicate in the instrument an intent to release all claims for both known a | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hanson v. Northern States Power Co.
green
2 sentences1975Among factors to be considered in determining the validity and extent of a release are the following: (a) The length of period between the injury and the settlement; (b) the amount of time elapsed between the settlement and the attempt to avoid the settlement; (c) the presence or absence of independent medical advice of plaintiff’s own choice before and at the time of the settlement (Hanson v. Northern States Power Co. 198 Minn. 24 , 268 N.W. 642 [1936]; Page v. Means, 192 F. Supp. 475 [N. D. 1975Among factors to be considered in determining the validity and extent of a release are the following: (a) The length of period between the injury and the settlement; (b) the amount of time elapsed between the settlement and the attempt to avoid the settlement; (c) the presence or absence of independent medical advice of plaintiff’s own choice before and at the time of the settlement (Hanson v. Northern States Power Co. 198 Minn. 24 , 268 N.W. 642 [1936]; Page v. Means, 192 F. Supp. 475 [N. D. | 4 | 1953–1975 |
Page v. Means
green
2 sentences1975Among factors to be considered in determining the validity and extent of a release are the following: (a) The length of period between the injury and the settlement; (b) the amount of time elapsed between the settlement and the attempt to avoid the settlement; (c) the presence or absence of independent medical advice of plaintiff’s own choice before and at the time of the settlement (Hanson v. Northern States Power Co. 198 Minn. 24 , 268 N.W. 642 [1936]; Page v. Means, 192 F. Supp. 475 [N. D. 1974Among factors to be considered in determining the validity and extent of a release are the following: (a) The length of period between the injury and the settlement; (b) the amount *110 of time elapsed between the settlement and the attempt to avoid the settlement; (c) the presence or absence of independent medical advice of plaintiff’s own choice before and at the time of the settlement (Hanson v. Northern States Power Co. 198 Minn. 24 , 268 N. W. 642 [1936]; Page v. Means, 192 F. Supp. 475 [N. D. | 2 | 1974–1975 |
Houle v. Stearns-Rogers Manufacturing Co.
green
2 sentences1985Co., 279 Minn. 345 , 157 N.W.2d 362 (1968) (receipt of compensation in South Dakota and giving of a release there did not bar subsequent Min *763 nesota proceeding, with credit given for the amount previously paid employee in South Dakota). 1985Co., 279 Minn. 345 , 157 N.W.2d 362 (1968) (receipt of compensation in South Dakota and giving of a release there did not bar subsequent Min *763 nesota proceeding, with credit given for the amount previously paid employee in South Dakota). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Stolpa v. Swanson Heavy Moving Co.
green
1 sentence1985Cf. Stolpa v. Swanson Heavy Moving Co., 315 N.W.2d 615 (Minn.1982) (Wisconsin employee who had been injured in this state and had received compensation voluntarily paid by his Wisconsin employer could seek compensation benefits here, from which the Wisconsin benefits paid him could be deducted). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Aronovitch v. Levy
green
2 sentences1966In Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237 , 56 N.W.2d 570 , 34 A.L.R.2d 1306 , this court stated that where the parties contracted for a release of all claims for known injuries, the release is a bar to recovery for unknown consequences of known injuries, but is not a bar to recovery for unknown injuries not within the contemplation of the parties at the time they contracted for the release. 1966In Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237 , 56 N.W.2d 570 , 34 A.L.R.2d 1306 , this court stated that where the parties contracted for a release of all claims for known injuries, the release is a bar to recovery for unknown consequences of known injuries, but is not a bar to recovery for unknown injuries not within the contemplation of the parties at the time they contracted for the release. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Newman v. Fjelstad
green
2 sentences1966Such release, however, is not a bar to recovery for unknown injuries not within the contemplation of the parties at the time the release was contracted for.” Later, in the Newman case we said ( 271 Minn. 519 , 137 N. W. [2d] 185): “The court indicated in the Doud case, where vacation of a settlement was affirmed, that the injury which was not discovered until after the settlement must in fact have been sustained at the time of the accident and have existed at the time of the settlement.” It appeared clear to the court in Newman v. Fjelstad, supra, that osteomyelitis did not actually develop un 1966Such release, *552 however, is not a bar to recovery for unknown injuries not within the contemplation of the parties at the time the release was contracted for." Later, in the Newman case we said ( 271 Minn. 519 , 137 N.W.2d 185 ): "The court indicated in the Doud case, where vacation of a settlement was affirmed, that the injury which was not discovered until after the settlement must in fact have been sustained at the time of the accident and have existed at the time of the settlement." It appeared clear to the court in Newman v. Fjelstad, supra, that osteomyelitis did not actually develop | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Larson v. Sventek
green
2 sentences1958R. (2d) 1306, 1313, we held under the circumstances in that case that the release was not a bar to recovery “for unknown injuries not within the contemplation of the parties at the time of contracting for such release” and that whether the parties intended the release to cover unknown injuries “is usually a question of fact.” And in Larson v. Stowe, supra, we cited Larson v. Sventek, 211 Minn. 385, 388 , 1 N. W. (2d) 608, 610 , in which we said: “* * * The rule applied in Minnesota is that a release is incontestable only when the parties expressly and intentionally settle for unknown injuries 1958R. (2d) 1306, 1313, we held under the circumstances in that case that the release was not a bar to recovery “for unknown injuries not within the contemplation of the parties at the time of contracting for such release” and that whether the parties intended the release to cover unknown injuries “is usually a question of fact.” And in Larson v. Stowe, supra, we cited Larson v. Sventek, 211 Minn. 385, 388 , 1 N. W. (2d) 608, 610 , in which we said: “* * * The rule applied in Minnesota is that a release is incontestable only when the parties expressly and intentionally settle for unknown injuries | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Mix v. Downing
neutral
2 sentences1958Hanson v. Northern States Power Co. 198 Minn. 24 , 268 N. W. 642 ; Mix v. Downing, 176 Minn. 156 , 222 N. W. 913 ; Nygard v. Minneapolis St. 1958Hanson v. Northern States Power Co. 198 Minn. 24 , 268 N. W. 642 ; Mix v. Downing, 176 Minn. 156 , 222 N. W. 913 ; Nygard v. Minneapolis St. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Goss v. Goss
green
2 sentences1937In this state the law should be considered settled that “where one person is injured by the wrong or negligence of another, and he *87 ■himself is not negligent in the selection of a medical attendant, the wrongdoer is liable for all the proximate results of his own act, although the consequences of the injury would have.been less serious than they proved to be if the attendant had exercised proper professional skill and care.” Goss v. Goss, 102 Minn. 346, 351 , 113 N. W. 690 . 1937In this state the law should be considered settled that “where one person is injured by the wrong or negligence of another, and he *87 ■himself is not negligent in the selection of a medical attendant, the wrongdoer is liable for all the proximate results of his own act, although the consequences of the injury would have.been less serious than they proved to be if the attendant had exercised proper professional skill and care.” Goss v. Goss, 102 Minn. 346, 351 , 113 N. W. 690 . | 1 | 1937–1937 |
In re the last will & testament of Rausch
green
2 sentences1930Defendant’s counsel cites In re Rausch, 35 Minn. 291 , 28 N. W. 920 ; Roll v. Roll, 51 Minn. 353 , 53 N. W. 716 ; McAllen v. McAllen, 97 Minn. 76 , 106 N. W. 100 ; Nelson v. Vassenden, 115 Minn. 1 , 131 N. W. 794 , 35 L.R.A. 1930Defendant’s counsel cites In re Rausch, 35 Minn. 291 , 28 N. W. 920 ; Roll v. Roll, 51 Minn. 353 , 53 N. W. 716 ; McAllen v. McAllen, 97 Minn. 76 , 106 N. W. 100 ; Nelson v. Vassenden, 115 Minn. 1 , 131 N. W. 794 , 35 L.R.A. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Roll v. Roll
green
2 sentences1930Defendant’s counsel cites In re Rausch, 35 Minn. 291 , 28 N. W. 920 ; Roll v. Roll, 51 Minn. 353 , 53 N. W. 716 ; McAllen v. McAllen, 97 Minn. 76 , 106 N. W. 100 ; Nelson v. Vassenden, 115 Minn. 1 , 131 N. W. 794 , 35 L.R.A. 1930Defendant’s counsel cites In re Rausch, 35 Minn. 291 , 28 N. W. 920 ; Roll v. Roll, 51 Minn. 353 , 53 N. W. 716 ; McAllen v. McAllen, 97 Minn. 76 , 106 N. W. 100 ; Nelson v. Vassenden, 115 Minn. 1 , 131 N. W. 794 , 35 L.R.A. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
McAllen v. McAllen
neutral
2 sentences1930Defendant’s counsel cites In re Rausch, 35 Minn. 291 , 28 N. W. 920 ; Roll v. Roll, 51 Minn. 353 , 53 N. W. 716 ; McAllen v. McAllen, 97 Minn. 76 , 106 N. W. 100 ; Nelson v. Vassenden, 115 Minn. 1 , 131 N. W. 794 , 35 L.R.A. 1930Defendant’s counsel cites In re Rausch, 35 Minn. 291 , 28 N. W. 920 ; Roll v. Roll, 51 Minn. 353 , 53 N. W. 716 ; McAllen v. McAllen, 97 Minn. 76 , 106 N. W. 100 ; Nelson v. Vassenden, 115 Minn. 1 , 131 N. W. 794 , 35 L.R.A. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Nelson v. Vassenden
green
2 sentences1930Defendant’s counsel cites In re Rausch, 35 Minn. 291 , 28 N. W. 920 ; Roll v. Roll, 51 Minn. 353 , 53 N. W. 716 ; McAllen v. McAllen, 97 Minn. 76 , 106 N. W. 100 ; Nelson v. Vassenden, 115 Minn. 1 , 131 N. W. 794 , 35 L.R.A. 1930Defendant’s counsel cites In re Rausch, 35 Minn. 291 , 28 N. W. 920 ; Roll v. Roll, 51 Minn. 353 , 53 N. W. 716 ; McAllen v. McAllen, 97 Minn. 76 , 106 N. W. 100 ; Nelson v. Vassenden, 115 Minn. 1 , 131 N. W. 794 , 35 L.R.A. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
In re the Assignment of Bird
neutral
2 sentences1889In the recent case of In re Bird, 39 Minn. 520 , ( 40 N. W. 1889In the recent case of In re Bird, 39 Minn. 520 , ( 40 N. W. | 1 | 1889–1889 |
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.