Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 602. COMPETENT EVIDENCE
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 602.04 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[Repealed, 1978 c 491 s 1; 1978 c 674 s 46]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases, 1957–1985 · leading case: Lustik v. Rankila, 131 N.W.2d 741 (Minn. 1964).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lustik v. Rankila, 131 N.W.2d 741 (Minn. 1964). · cites it 26× “2d 345 , which held that because of the statutory presumption of decedent's due care, § 602.04, it was improper to do so. [1] The court ordered that the trustee's suit be given priority since it was first sued.”
Price v. Amdal, 256 N.W.2d 461 (Minn. 1977). · cites it 12× “602.04, making instruction of the presumption mandatory and requiring the jury, not the trial court, to determine whether the presumption had been rebutted by the evidence.”
Lambach v. Nw. Refining Co., 111 N.W.2d 345 (Minn. 1961). · cites it 18× “It seems to me that the enactment of § 602.04 in 1957 has led to a situation where it is now impossible for a trial court to instruct a jury rationally on the law of negligence where an action in which a third party sues the representative of the estate of a decedent is…”
Zinnel v. Berghuis Constr. Co., 274 N.W.2d 495 (Minn. 1979). · cites it 3× “1976, § 602.04, 9 a statutory presumption which did not operate in the present case.”
Ekstrom v. Harmon, 98 N.W.2d 241 (Minn. 1959). · cites it 6× “The only issue before us is whether or not the statutory presumption of § 602.04 should be applied retrospectively to causes of action which arose before the statute was enacted.”
Steinhaus v. Adamson, 201 N.W.2d 264 (Minn. 1972). · cites it 8× “We think the presumption should not be considered evidence but should be considered a procedural device that determines who would prevail if the evidence were to stop at that point.”
Hanson v. Roe, 373 N.W.2d 366 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 6× “In 1957, five years after TePoel and apparently in response to it, the Minnesota Legislature enacted Minn.Stat. § 602.04 (repealed 1978). 1 This statute revived the presumption of due care in wrongful death actions' and required that the jury be instructed regarding the…”
Roeck v. Halvorson, 95 N.W.2d 172 (Minn. 1959). · cites it 3× “With reference to the instructions given relative to the presumption of due care, § 602.04 provides: “In any action to recover damages for negligently causing the death of a person, it shall be presumed that any person whose death resulted from the occurrence giving rise to the…”
Elias v. City of St. Paul, 350 N.W.2d 442 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “§ 602.04, a statutory presumption which did not operate in the present case.”
Hunt v. Nevada State Bank, 172 N.W.2d 292 (Minn. 1969). “Davis, supra, permitted a facile resolution of the case: “* * * It is unnecessary for us to determine whether the presumption established by § 602.04 involves a law of procedure or a substantive law since this court in Chapman v.”
Lott v. Davidson, 109 N.W.2d 336 (Minn. 1961). “In his instructions the trial court informed the jury of § 602.04 (L. 1957, c. 949), which creates a presumption of due care in certain negligence actions and provides: “In any action to recover damages for negligently causing the death of a person, it shall be presumed that any…”
State v. Higgin, 99 N.W.2d 902 (Minn. 1959). “, § 602.04 (discussed in Roeck v. Halvorson, 254 Minn.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
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.