Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Looney v. Drometer, 72 N.W. 797.

15 citing documents.

  • Howells v. McKibben 281 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 1979
    The doing of an act prohibited by law or the neglect to perform a duty imposed by law, resulting in damages to another, creates a legal liability, Baxter v. Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1 , and may be denominated a tort within the scope of the long-arm statute.
  • State Ex Rel. Nelson v. Nelson 216 N.W.2d 140 Minn. 1974
    The doing of an act prohibited by law or the neglect to perform a duty imposed by law, resulting in damages to another, creates a legal liability, Baxter v. Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1 , and may be denominated a tort *442 within the scope of the long-arm statute.
  • Henderson v. Bjork Monument Co. Inc. 24 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1946
    Violation of the ordinance has for its foundation this generally accepted rule (Baxter v. Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1, 4 , ): “* * * that where the statute, for the protection and benefit of individuals, prohibits a person from doing an act, or imposes upon him a duty, if he disobeys the prohibition or neglects to perform the duty, he is liable to those for whose protection the statute was enacted for any damages resulting proximatel
  • Kaiser v. Butchart 274 N.W. 680 Minn. 1937
    More nearly applicable is the rule applied in Baxter v. Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1 , , where it was held that the directors of a bank receiving deposits in violation of L. 1895, c. 219, knowing the bank to be insolvent, became liable to a person making a deposit for the loss sustained, the depositor being ignorant of the insolvency of the bank.
  • Aichele Bros. Inc. v. Skoglund 260 N.W. 290 Minn. 1935
    Baxter v. Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1 , ; Frederick v. McRae, 157 Minn. 366 , .
  • Barsness v. Tiegen 238 N.W. 161 Minn. 1931
    We have applied the principle to § 10407 in Baxter v. Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1 , ; Johnson v. Larson, 177 Minn. 60 , ; Johnson v. Floan, 183 Minn. 461 , ; and Olesen v. Retzlaff, 184 Minn. 624 , , .
  • Olesen v. Retzlaff 238 N.W. 12 Minn. 1931
    We applied the doctrine when this statute was involved in Baxter v. Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1 , ; Johnson v. Larson, 177 Minn. 60 , 224 N.W.
  • Johnson v. Floan 237 N.W. 23 Minn. 1931
    So held with reference to this statute, Baxter v. Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1 , ; Johnson v. Larson, 177 Minn. 60 , .
  • Johnson v. Larson 224 N.W. 466 Minn. 1929
    Baxter v. Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1 , ; Frederick v. McRae, 157 Minn. 366 , ; State v. Shove, 96 Wis.
  • Frederick v. McRae 196 N.W. 270 Minn. 1923
    Baxter v. Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1 , ; Q-.
  • Sullivan v. Minneapolis & Rainy River Railway Co. 142 N.W. 3 Minn. 1913
    1912A 51; Baxter v. Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1, 4 , ; Bott v. Pratt, 33 Minn. 323, 326 , , 53 Am.
  • Meshbesher v. Channellene Oil & Manufacturing Co. 119 N.W. 428 Minn. 1909
    47; Baxter v. Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1 , .
  • Anderson v. Settergren 111 N.W. 279 Minn. 1907
    440; Baxter v. Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1 , ; Tvedt v. Wheeler, 70 Minn. 161 , ; Rosse v. St.
  • Smith v. Kistler 86 N.W. 876 Minn. 1901
  • Smith v. Kistler 86 N.W. 876 Minn. 1901
    Co., 49 Minn. 353 , ; Looney v. Drometer, 69 Minn. 505 , .