Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Baxter v. Coughlin, 72 N.W. 797.

26 citing documents.

Howells v. McKibben 281 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 1979
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 , 72 N.W.
State Ex Rel. Nelson v. Nelson 216 N.W.2d 140 Minn. 1974
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
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 re
Kaiser v. Butchart 274 N.W. 680 Minn. 1937
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
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
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
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 , 72 N.W.
Johnson v. Floan 237 N.W. 23 Minn. 1931
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
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
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
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
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
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.