7 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2016 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ostendorf v. Kenyongreen2 sentences1997Ostendorf v. Kenyon, 347 N.W.2d 834, 838 (Minn.App.1984) (en banc) (“The State’s placement of warning signs on the highway was not a discretionary act after the State had knowledge of a dangerous situation where warning could be provided by additional or better signs.”); see Gutbrod v. County of Hennepin, 529 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Minn.App.1995) (“Since there was no evidence that the crack [in the road] was dangerous or presented a dangerous condition, the presence or absence of warning signs was in the range of discretionary acts.”); Seaton v. Scott County, 404 N.W.2d 396, 399 (Minn.App.1987) (sta 1987In Ostendorf v. Kenyon, 347 N.W.2d 834, 838 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), this court held that the placement of warning signs on a highway was not a discretionary act after the state had knowledge of a dangerous condition. | 2 | 4 |
Steinke v. City of Andovergreen1 sentence2016Steinke v. City of Andover, 525 N.W.2d 173, 175-76 (Minn. 1994) (“We have recognized that the government’s initial decision, whether to place signs warning the public of potential hazards, is protected as a discretionary function because it involves the consideration of several policy factors.”). | 1 | 1 |
Gonzales v. Hollinsgreen1 sentence1997Ostendorf v. Kenyon, 347 N.W.2d 834, 838 (Minn.App.1984) (en banc) (“The State’s placement of warning signs on the highway was not a discretionary act after the State had knowledge of a dangerous situation where warning could be provided by additional or better signs.”); see Gutbrod v. County of Hennepin, 529 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Minn.App.1995) (“Since there was no evidence that the crack [in the road] was dangerous or presented a dangerous condition, the presence or absence of warning signs was in the range of discretionary acts.”); Seaton v. Scott County, 404 N.W.2d 396, 399 (Minn.App.1987) (sta | 1 | 1 |
Seaton v. County of Scottgreen1 sentence1997Ostendorf v. Kenyon, 347 N.W.2d 834, 838 (Minn.App.1984) (en banc) (“The State’s placement of warning signs on the highway was not a discretionary act after the State had knowledge of a dangerous situation where warning could be provided by additional or better signs.”); see Gutbrod v. County of Hennepin, 529 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Minn.App.1995) (“Since there was no evidence that the crack [in the road] was dangerous or presented a dangerous condition, the presence or absence of warning signs was in the range of discretionary acts.”); Seaton v. Scott County, 404 N.W.2d 396, 399 (Minn.App.1987) (sta | 1 | 1 |
Gutbrod v. County of Hennepingreen1 sentence1997Ostendorf v. Kenyon, 347 N.W.2d 834, 838 (Minn.App.1984) (en banc) (“The State’s placement of warning signs on the highway was not a discretionary act after the State had knowledge of a dangerous situation where warning could be provided by additional or better signs.”); see Gutbrod v. County of Hennepin, 529 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Minn.App.1995) (“Since there was no evidence that the crack [in the road] was dangerous or presented a dangerous condition, the presence or absence of warning signs was in the range of discretionary acts.”); Seaton v. Scott County, 404 N.W.2d 396, 399 (Minn.App.1987) (sta | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ireland v. Crow's Nest Yachts, Inc.
green
1 sentence2016Id. at 273 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Ramczik v. Winona MacHine & Foundry Co.
green
2 sentences2005Ramczik, 174 Minn. at 157-58 , 218 N.W. at 545 . 2005Ramczik, 174 Minn. at 157-58 , 218 N.W. at 545 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.