11 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bennett v. Larsen Co.green2 sentences2004Id. at 551. [3] This holding does not apply to the "Swanson incident," discussed in the next section of this opinion. [4] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 416 (1975) (Work Dangerous in Absence of Special Precautions); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 417 (Work Done in Public Place); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 418 (Maintenance of Public Highways and Other Public Places); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 419 (Repairs Which Lessor Is Under a Duty to His Lessee to Make); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 420 (Repairs Gratuitously Undertaken by Lessor); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 421 (Maintena 2004Id. at 551. . | 2 | 2 |
Peterson v. Pawelkgreen1 sentence2026Under section 346.16, owners of certain species of animals, including cattle, cannot permit the animals “to run at large.” Peterson v. Pawelk, 263 N.W.2d 634, 637 (Minn. 1978). | 1 | 1 |
Pigman v. Nottgreen1 sentence2026When the doctrine of negligence per se applies, a “violation of the statute constitutes conclusive evidence of negligence . . . unless excusable or justifiable under the circumstances of the case.” Pigman v. Nott, 233 N.W.2d 287, 288 (Minn. 1975) (citation omitted) (applying this rule to section 346.16). | 1 | 1 |
Seim Ex Rel. Seim v. Garavaliagreen1 sentence2012Regarding the Johnsons’ negligence per se claim, we have recognized that “ ‘negligence per se is a form of ordinary negligence that results from violation of a statute.’ ” Anderson, 693 N.W.2d at 189 (quoting Seim v. Garavalia, 306 N.W.2d 806, 810 (Minn.1981)). | 1 | 1 |
Alderman's Inc. v. Shanksgreen1 sentence2004A negligence per se instruction may be given if (1) “the persons harmed by [the] violation [of a statute] are within the intended protection of the statute” and (2) “the harm -suffered is of the type the [statute] was intended to prevent.” Alderman’s Inc. v. Shanks, 536 N.W.2d 4, 8 (Minn.1995). | 1 | 1 |
Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc.red1 sentence1995See Pacific Indemnity, 260 N.W.2d at 559 ; Johnson v. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Balaton, 320 N.W.2d 892 (Minn.1982). 7 But does UFC § 1.103(b), the grandfather clause, exempt Roberts from liability for this violation and thus negate the application of the negligence per se doctrine? | 1 | 1 |
Bills v. Willow Run I Apartmentsgreen1 sentence1995See Bills v. Willow Run I Apartments, 534 N.W.2d 286 (Minn.App.1995). | 1 | 1 |
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Company of Minneapolisgreen2 sentences1987See Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 229 , 214 N.W.2d 672, 676 (1974) (errors in jury instructions are “fundamental or controlling” if they “ ‘destroy the substantial correctness of the charge as a whole’ ” or result in “substantial prejudice”). 1987See Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 229 , 214 N.W.2d 672, 676 (1974) (errors in jury instructions are “fundamental or controlling” if they “ ‘destroy the substantial correctness of the charge as a whole’ ” or result in “substantial prejudice”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bills v. Willow Run I Apartments
green
2 sentences2002We only intended to bring the negligence per se analysis for landlord violations of the UBC more in line with the standard used for ordinary negligence in landlord liability, rather than creating a rule that UBC violations must always be analyzed under negligence per se. ■ See id. 2001Id. at 694-95 . | 2 | 2001–2002 |
Anderson v. State, Department of Natural Resources
green
1 sentence2012Regarding the Johnsons’ negligence per se claim, we have recognized that “ ‘negligence per se is a form of ordinary negligence that results from violation of a statute.’ ” Anderson, 693 N.W.2d at 189 (quoting Seim v. Garavalia, 306 N.W.2d 806, 810 (Minn.1981)). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Gradjelick v. Hance
green
2 sentences2005Gradjelick, 646 N.W.2d at 234 . 2005Gradjelick, 646 N.W.2d at 234 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Johnson v. Farmers & Merchants State Bank of Balaton
green
1 sentence1995See Pacific Indemnity, 260 N.W.2d at 559 ; Johnson v. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Balaton, 320 N.W.2d 892 (Minn.1982). 7 But does UFC § 1.103(b), the grandfather clause, exempt Roberts from liability for this violation and thus negate the application of the negligence per se doctrine? | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Raymond v. Baehr
green
2 sentences1987Mervin relies primarily on Raymond v. Baehr, 282 Minn. 109 , 163 N.W.2d 51 (1968). 1987Mervin relies primarily on Raymond v. Baehr, 282 Minn. 109 , 163 N.W.2d 51 (1968). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.