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.
10 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1901–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Imperial Premium Finance, Inc. v. GK Cab Co.green2 sentences2016See Imperial Premium Fin., Inc. v. GK Cab Co., 603 N.W.2d 853, 859 (Minn. App. 2000) (noting that “a strong showing on three factors may offset relative weakness on one factor” but reasoning that movant “failed to satisfy two factors” and concluding that district court abused its discretion in vacating default judgment against movant). 2016Cf. Imperial Premium Fin., Inc. v. GK Cab Co., 603 N.W.2d 853, 859 (Minn. App. 2000) (noting that “a strong showing on three factors may offset relative weakness on one factor” but reasoning that movant “failed to satisfy two factors” and concluding that district court abused its discretion in vacating default judgment against movant). 9 | 2 | 2 |
Laurie v. Muellergreen2 sentences1979As this court stated in Laurie v. Mueller, 248 Minn. 1, 4 , 78 N.W.2d 434, 437 (1956): “ * * * This doctrine of vicarious liability of the master rests upon the sound principle that, if an employer expects to derive certain advantages from the acts performed by others for him, he, as well as the careless employee, should bear the financial responsibility for injuries occurring to innocent third persons as a result of the negligent performance of such acts. 1979As this court stated in Laurie v. Mueller, 248 Minn. 1, 4 , 78 N.W.2d 434, 437 (1956): “ * * * This doctrine of vicarious liability of the master rests upon the sound principle that, if an employer expects to derive certain advantages from the acts performed by others for him, he, as well as the careless employee, should bear the financial responsibility for injuries occurring to innocent third persons as a result of the negligent performance of such acts. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Webbgreen1 sentence2026The concurrence itself finds the video recorder result to be “not conclusive,” and agreed that the intruder theory cannot be ruled out as unreasonable “based on the sound test evidence alone.” There are many conflicting inferences in this case, which makes what we explained in Webb equally true here: the “circumstances [proved] may cast a suspicion of guilt on the appellant, but they in no way exclude other rational inferences which can also be drawn from these circumstances.” Id. at 431. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Reliance Motor Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance
green
2 sentences1958Co. 165 Minn. 442, 444 , 206 N. W. 655, 656 , as follows: “The general rule is that there may be an express or an implied waiver of proofs of loss and that a waiver may be inferred from any words or conduct of the insurer’s authorized officers or agents evincing an intention on the part of the insurer not to insist on compliance with the requirements of the policy in respect to proofs of loss and calculated to lead the insured to believe that they will not be insisted on. * * * “It has been held that an offer to pay the loss, or negotiations for the settlement thereof, may warrant a finding of 1958Co. 165 Minn. 442, 444 , 206 N. W. 655, 656 , as follows: “The general rule is that there may be an express or an implied waiver of proofs of loss and that a waiver may be inferred from any words or conduct of the insurer’s authorized officers or agents evincing an intention on the part of the insurer not to insist on compliance with the requirements of the policy in respect to proofs of loss and calculated to lead the insured to believe that they will not be insisted on. * * * “It has been held that an offer to pay the loss, or negotiations for the settlement thereof, may warrant a finding of | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Hinchuk v. Swift & Co.
green
2 sentences1953NOTES [1] Reported in 58 N.W. (2d) 731 . [2] Hinchuk v. Swift & Co. 149 Minn. 1 , 182 N.W. 622 . [3] E.g., Fischer v. Industrial Comm. 408 Ill. 115 , 96 N.E. (2d) 478; Horvath v. La Fond, 305 Mich. 69 , 8 N.W. (2d) 915 ; Vollmer v. Industrial Comm. 254 Wis. 162 , 35 N.W. (2d) 304 . [4] E.g., Burkhardt v. City of Monroe (La. 1953NOTES [1] Reported in 58 N.W. (2d) 731 . [2] Hinchuk v. Swift & Co. 149 Minn. 1 , 182 N.W. 622 . [3] E.g., Fischer v. Industrial Comm. 408 Ill. 115 , 96 N.E. (2d) 478; Horvath v. La Fond, 305 Mich. 69 , 8 N.W. (2d) 915 ; Vollmer v. Industrial Comm. 254 Wis. 162 , 35 N.W. (2d) 304 . [4] E.g., Burkhardt v. City of Monroe (La. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Horvath v. La Fond
green
2 sentences1953NOTES [1] Reported in 58 N.W. (2d) 731 . [2] Hinchuk v. Swift & Co. 149 Minn. 1 , 182 N.W. 622 . [3] E.g., Fischer v. Industrial Comm. 408 Ill. 115 , 96 N.E. (2d) 478; Horvath v. La Fond, 305 Mich. 69 , 8 N.W. (2d) 915 ; Vollmer v. Industrial Comm. 254 Wis. 162 , 35 N.W. (2d) 304 . [4] E.g., Burkhardt v. City of Monroe (La. 1953NOTES [1] Reported in 58 N.W. (2d) 731 . [2] Hinchuk v. Swift & Co. 149 Minn. 1 , 182 N.W. 622 . [3] E.g., Fischer v. Industrial Comm. 408 Ill. 115 , 96 N.E. (2d) 478; Horvath v. La Fond, 305 Mich. 69 , 8 N.W. (2d) 915 ; Vollmer v. Industrial Comm. 254 Wis. 162 , 35 N.W. (2d) 304 . [4] E.g., Burkhardt v. City of Monroe (La. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Fischer v. Industrial Commission
green
1 sentence1953NOTES [1] Reported in 58 N.W. (2d) 731 . [2] Hinchuk v. Swift & Co. 149 Minn. 1 , 182 N.W. 622 . [3] E.g., Fischer v. Industrial Comm. 408 Ill. 115 , 96 N.E. (2d) 478; Horvath v. La Fond, 305 Mich. 69 , 8 N.W. (2d) 915 ; Vollmer v. Industrial Comm. 254 Wis. 162 , 35 N.W. (2d) 304 . [4] E.g., Burkhardt v. City of Monroe (La. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Vollmer v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1953NOTES [1] Reported in 58 N.W. (2d) 731 . [2] Hinchuk v. Swift & Co. 149 Minn. 1 , 182 N.W. 622 . [3] E.g., Fischer v. Industrial Comm. 408 Ill. 115 , 96 N.E. (2d) 478; Horvath v. La Fond, 305 Mich. 69 , 8 N.W. (2d) 915 ; Vollmer v. Industrial Comm. 254 Wis. 162 , 35 N.W. (2d) 304 . [4] E.g., Burkhardt v. City of Monroe (La. 1953NOTES [1] Reported in 58 N.W. (2d) 731 . [2] Hinchuk v. Swift & Co. 149 Minn. 1 , 182 N.W. 622 . [3] E.g., Fischer v. Industrial Comm. 408 Ill. 115 , 96 N.E. (2d) 478; Horvath v. La Fond, 305 Mich. 69 , 8 N.W. (2d) 915 ; Vollmer v. Industrial Comm. 254 Wis. 162 , 35 N.W. (2d) 304 . [4] E.g., Burkhardt v. City of Monroe (La. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Petro v. Martin Baking Co.
green
1 sentence1953NOTES [1] Reported in 58 N.W. (2d) 731 . [2] Hinchuk v. Swift & Co. 149 Minn. 1 , 182 N.W. 622 . [3] E.g., Fischer v. Industrial Comm. 408 Ill. 115 , 96 N.E. (2d) 478; Horvath v. La Fond, 305 Mich. 69 , 8 N.W. (2d) 915 ; Vollmer v. Industrial Comm. 254 Wis. 162 , 35 N.W. (2d) 304 . [4] E.g., Burkhardt v. City of Monroe (La. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Salus v. Great Northern Railway Co.
neutral
2 sentences1930Co. 157 Wis. 546 , 550 , 147 N.W. 1070 , 1071 , the court said: "A fellow servant must be free to execute simple ordinary movements in the performance of his duties and depend upon his associates, in the exercise of like liberty of action, to pay some heed to their own situation." It appears to us that this is sound doctrine. 1930Co. 157 Wis. 546 , 550 , 147 N.W. 1070 , 1071 , the court said: "A fellow servant must be free to execute simple ordinary movements in the performance of his duties and depend upon his associates, in the exercise of like liberty of action, to pay some heed to their own situation." It appears to us that this is sound doctrine. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Mabel First Lutheran Church v. Cadwallader
green
2 sentences1928Mabel First Lutheran Church v. Cadwallader, 172 Minn. 471 , 215 N. W. 845 ; Toledo, St. 1928Mabel First Lutheran Church v. Cadwallader, 172 Minn. 471 , 215 N. W. 845 ; Toledo, St. | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Conrad v. Lane
neutral
2 sentences1901It is probably a sound rule of law which releases an infant from paying for goods which he has purchased by false representations as to his age, and which cannot themselves be restored, as held in Conrad v. Lane, 26 Minn. 389 , 4 N. W. 695 , but that doctrine cannot be extended to enable an infant to retain land which has been preserved for him as in this case. 1901It is probably a sound rule of law which releases an infant from paying for goods which he has purchased by false representations as to his age, and which cannot themselves be restored, as held in Conrad v. Lane, 26 Minn. 389 , 4 N. W. 695 , but that doctrine cannot be extended to enable an infant to retain land which has been preserved for him as in this case. | 1 | 1901–1901 |
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.