Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 340A.502 (2026)
Sales To Obviously Intoxicated Persons
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
No person may sell, give, furnish, or in any way procure for another alcoholic beverages for the use of an obviously intoxicated person.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1989–2019 · leading case: Urban v. Am. Legion Dep't of Minnesota, 723 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2006).
Urban v. Am. Legion Dep't of Minnesota, 723 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2006). “The Department and National have a specific rule that prohibits posts from serving alcohol to nonmembers, and have mandated specific procedures that a post must follow to assure compliance with this rule"police the doors," "check the [membership] cards" and "get rid of"…”
Schulte v. Corner Club Bar, 544 N.W.2d 486 (Minn. 1996). “802, subdivision 1 (1992) states that a person claiming damages under the dram-shop act must give written notice to the licensee stating: (1) the time and date when and the person to whom the alcoholic beverages were sold or bartered; (2) the name and address of the person or…”
Boone v. Martinez, 567 N.W.2d 508 (Minn. 1997). “The Boones also brought two claims against the Palace Bar, the first for negligent failure to exercise reasonable care to control and secure its patrons and premises, and the second for dram shop liability resulting from the illegal *510 sale of alcohol to Martinez when he…”
K.R. v. Sanford, 605 N.W.2d 387 (Minn. 2000). “The statute was repealed and replaced by Minn.Stat. §§ 340A.502 and 340A.503. See Act of June 5, 1985, ch.”
Oien v. Thompson, 824 F. Supp. 2d 898 (D. Minnesota 2010). “) The amended complaint alleges *903 that Thompson “negligently sold intoxicating liquors to” Ackert in violation of Minnesota Statute § 340A.502 “and other pertinent statutes and laws.”
May v. Strecker, 453 N.W.2d 549 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). “1989), this court sustained a jury’s finding that a dram shop had violated Minn.Stat. § 340A.502 (1986) by selling liquor to an obviously intoxicated individual.”
Jewett v. Deutsch, 437 N.W.2d 717 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). “Minn.Stat. § 340A.502 (1986) prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages “for the use of an obviously intoxicated person.”
Line Constr. Benefit Fund (Lineco) v. Skeates, 563 N.W.2d 757 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). “Lineco could proceed in an action against the Office Bar only as a subrogee of Jacalyn Palmer, and because Jacalyn Palmer, a voluntarily intoxicated per *761 son, cannot maintain a successful action, neither can Lineco.”
Alexander v. 1328 Uptown, Inc. (D. Minnesota 2019). “” Minn. Stat. § 340A.502. Employee training and control of alcohol service decisions are not elements of his dram shop claim, and Alexander has not cited any case where those factors were considered when determining whether a patron was “obviously intoxicated” or in the context…”
Christine Dittel v. Farmers Ins. Exch. (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). “First, Dittel alleged that Woody’s, Fusco, and Smith violated Minn. Stat. § 340A.502 by “illegally [selling] and barter[ing] intoxicating liquor” to Anderson when he was “obviously intoxicated” and that Anderson “caused harmful contact with [her].”
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.