Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 340. INTOXICATING LIQUORS
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 340.14 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[Repealed, 1985 c 305 art 13 s 1; renumbered in part 340A.504, subd 3, paragraph (b)]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases, 1943–2005 · leading case: Hollerich v. City of Good Thunder, 340 N.W.2d 665 (Minn. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hollerich v. City of Good Thunder, 340 N.W.2d 665 (Minn. 1983). · cites it 28× “Minn.Stat. § 340.14," subd. 1 (1982), provides: “No ‘off-sale’ shall be made before eight o’clock a.”
Sabes v. City of Minneapolis, 120 N.W.2d 871 (Minn. 1963). · cites it 12× “The revocation was ultimately based entirely upon a violation of § 340.14, subd. 2. The use of plaintiff's premises as a resort for prostitutes had been discussed with plaintiff's employees on previous occasions.”
E.T.O., Inc. v. Town of Marion, 375 N.W.2d 815 (Minn. 1985). · cites it 18× “The board found the bar incompatible with the neighborhood and in violation of Minn. Stat. § 340.14 , subd. 3(7) (1984), which pro *817 hibits the sale of liquor outside of a municipality within 1,500 feet of a public school.”
Mjos Ex Rel. Mjos v. Vill. of Howard Lake, 178 N.W.2d 862 (Minn. 1970). · cites it 14× “1965, § 340.14, subd. 1, eliminated the provision which made a sale to an intoxicated person illegal if, but only if, he was “obviously” intoxicated.”
Wegan v. Vill. of Lexington, 309 N.W.2d 273 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 4× “" In a dram shop action this burden of proof is mandated by Minn.Stat. § 340.14(1a) (1980). In an action against a 3.”
Johnson v. Moberg, 334 N.W.2d 411 (Minn. 1983). · cites it 8× “1 (1978), or an “obviously intoxicated” person under Minn.Stat. § 340.14, subd. la (1982), the statute regulating the sale of “intoxicating liquors.”
Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116 (1982). · cites it 2× “1982); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 340.14 (1972 and Supp.”
Strand v. Vill. of Watson, 72 N.W.2d 609 (Minn. 1955). · cites it 8× “*420 In determining whether plaintiff has sustained the necessary burden of proof, defendant contends that § 340.14 is the applicable statute in determining whether there has been an illegal sale.”
Seeley Ex Rel. Seeley v. Sobczak, 281 N.W.2d 368 (Minn. 1979). · cites it 13× “of the blood sample and the accuracy of its analysis, (d) the proximity of the accident to Eagle Tavern, (e) the circumstances of the accident itself, (f) the custom and habit of the person and of his drinking, (g) the custom and habit of the liquor vendor, and (h) the general…”
Johnson v. St. Charles Mun. Liquor Store, 392 N.W.2d 909 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 9× “Appellant also attempted to introduce evidence showing that respondent's bartender had violated Minn.Stat. § 340.14 (1984), which prohibits the serving of alcohol to someone who is visibly intoxicated.”
Trail v. Vill. of Elk River, 175 N.W.2d 916 (Minn. 1970). · cites it 6× “1965, § 340.14, subd. 1, provides in part: “* * * No intoxicating liquor shall be sold, furnished, or delivered for any purpose to any person under the age of 21 years or to a habitual drunkard or to any person obviously intoxicated *386 or to any of the persons to whom sale is…”
Devine v. McLain, 306 N.W.2d 827 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 4× “2d 134, 138 (1959); see Minn.Stat. § 340.14(2) (1980) ("Every [tavern owner] shall be responsible for the conduct of his place of business for conditions of sobriety and order therein.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
— Minn. Stat. § 340.14(1a) — 2 cases
Wegan v. Vill. of Lexington, 309 N.W.2d 273 (Minn. 1981). “" In a dram shop action this burden of proof is mandated by Minn.Stat. § 340.14(1a) (1980). In an action against a 3.”
Holmquist v. Miller, 352 N.W.2d 47 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).
— Minn. Stat. § 340.14(2) — 1 case
Devine v. McLain, 306 N.W.2d 827 (Minn. 1981). “2d 134, 138 (1959); see Minn.Stat. § 340.14(2) (1980) ("Every [tavern owner] shall be responsible for the conduct of his place of business for conditions of sobriety and order therein.”
— Minn. Stat. § 340.14(la) — 1 case
Wegan v. Vill. of Lexington, 309 N.W.2d 273 (Minn. 1981). “" In a dram shop action this burden of proof is mandated by Minn.Stat. § 340.14(1a) (1980). In an action against a 3.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.