Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Brown v. Village of Heron Lake, 69 N.W. 710.

30 citing documents.

Alice Ann Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 853 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2014
Sipe v. STS Manufacturing, Inc. 834 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 2013
Sipe v. STS Manufacturing, Inc. 834 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 2013
§ 645.08(3) (2012) (stating that “general words are construed to be restricted in their meaning by preceding particular words”); Brown v. Village of Heron Lake, 67 Minn. 146, 147 , 69 N.W.
Sipe v. STS Manufacturing, Inc. 822 N.W.2d 2 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Sipe v. STS Manufacturing, Inc. 822 N.W.2d 2 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
of Heron Lake, 67 Minn. 146, 147-48 , 69 N.W.
Wild v. Rarig 234 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 1975
Wild v. Rarig 234 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 1975
The first case to construe the amended provision was Brown *444 v. Village of Heron Lake, 67 Minn. 146
Dalton v. Dow Chemical Co. 158 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1968
Dalton v. Dow Chemical Co. 158 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1968
1 See, Brown v. Village of Heron Lake, 67 Minn. 146 , American Mutual Lia.
Villaume v. Wilkinson 296 N.W. 176 Minn. 1941
Villaume v. Wilkinson 296 N.W. 176 Minn. 1941
Brown v. Village of Heron Lake, 67 Minn. 146 , ; Ott v. G. N. Ry.
In Re Estate of Daniel 294 N.W. 465 Minn. 1940
Whitney v. Daniel 208 Minn. 420 Minn. 1940
Whitney v. Daniel 208 Minn. 420 Minn. 1940
Co. 70 Minn. 35 , ; Brown v. Village of Heron Lake, 67 Minn. 146 , ; 4 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
In Re Estate of Daniel 294 N.W. 465 Minn. 1940
1134 ; Brown v. Village of Heron Lake, 67 Minn. 146 , 69 N.W.
Kozisek v. Brigham 210 N.W. 622 Minn. 1926
Kozisek v. Brigham 210 N.W. 622 Minn. 1926
S. 1923 (which formerly applied to actions such as this under the rule of Brown v. Heron Lake, 67 Minn. 146 , ), the demurrer should have been sustained.
Bond v. Pennsylvania Railroad 144 N.W. 942 Minn. 1914
Bond v. Pennsylvania Railroad 144 N.W. 942 Minn. 1914
Co. 37 Minn. 164 , ; State v. McDonald, 26 Minn. 445 , ; Brown v. Village of Heron Lake, 67 Minn. 146 , ; Hunt v. Grant, 87 Minn. 189 , ; Murtaugh v. Chicago, M. & St.
Virtue v. Creamery Package Manufacturing Co. 142 N.W. 930 Minn. 1913
Virtue v. Creamery Package Manufacturing Co. 142 N.W. 930 Minn. 1913
Brown v. Village of Heron Lake, 67 Minn. 146 , .
Finch v. Bursheim 142 N.W. 143 Minn. 1913
Finch v. Bursheim 142 N.W. 143 Minn. 1913
1, which provides that “The following actions shall be commenced within two years: Dor libel, slander, assault, battery, false imprisonment, or other tort resulting in personal injury.” The construction placed upon this subdivision in Brown v. Village of Heron Lake, 67 Minn. 146 , and Ott v. Great Northern Ry.
Quackenbush v. Village of Slayton 139 N.W. 716 Minn. 1913
Quackenbush v. Village of Slayton 139 N.W. 716 Minn. 1913
Brown v. Village of Heron Lake, 67 Minn. 146 , ; Ackerman v. Chicago, St.
Winters v. City of Duluth 84 N.W. 788 Minn. 1901
Ott v. Great Northern Railway Co. 72 N.W. 833 Minn. 1897
Ott v. Great Northern Railway Co. 72 N.W. 833 Minn. 1897
COLLINS, J. 2 We had occasion in Brown v. Village, 67 Minn. 146 , , to construe Laws 1895, c. 30, relating to the statute of limitations, and in terms amendatory of G. S. 1878, c. 66, § 8 (Gr.
Bryant v. American Surety Co. of New York 71 N.W. 826 Minn. 1897
Bryant v. American Surety Co. of New York 71 N.W. 826 Minn. 1897
This amendment was construed in the case of Brown v. Village, 67 Minn. 146 , , wherein it was held that the amendment did not apply to actions for personal injuries arising from the negligent omission to do an act, but that it was limited to and included a class of wrongs of a similar- nature to those mentioned in section 5138 before it was amended.