DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cuney v. Campbell, 78 N.W. 878.

24 citing documents.

  • Boitz v. Preblich 405 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Boitz v. Preblich 405 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Anderson v. Anderson, 259 Minn. 412, 415 , (quoting Cuney v. Campbell, 76 Minn. 59, 62 , 78 N.W.
  • Judd v. Zupon 209 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1973
  • Judd v. Zupon 209 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1973
    Fake v. Addicks, 45 Minn. 37, 38 , Cuney v. Campbell, 76 Minn. 59 , Clark v. Brings, 284 Minn. 73 , Matson v. Kivimaki, 294 Minn. 140
  • Matson v. Kivimaki 200 N.W.2d 164 Minn. 1972
  • Matson v. Kivimaki 200 N.W.2d 164 Minn. 1972
    51 (1890), set forth the general common-law requirements for recovery as follows: “The gravamen of the action is the neglect of the owner of an animal, known by him to be vicious and liable to attack and injure people, to restrain him so as to prevent the risk of damage; and the notice of such propensity must be such as to put a prudent man on his guard.” Shortly thereafter, in Cuney v. Campbell, 76 Minn. 59, 62 , the court emphasized that two separate elements were involved: «* * * Proof of the
  • Clark v. Brings 169 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1969
  • Clark v. Brings 169 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1969
    E. g., Fake v. Addicks, 45 Minn. 37 , ; Cuney v. Campbell, 76 Minn. 59 , ; Rowe v. Ehrmanntraut, 92 Minn. 17 , ; Maynard v. Keough, 145 Minn. 26 , *76 ; Lavalle v. Kaupp, 240 Minn. 360 , 61 N. W. (2d) 228 , 40 A. L. R. (2d) 539; Anderson v. Anderson, supra.
  • Anderson v. Anderson 107 N.W.2d 647 Minn. 1961
  • Followed Anderson v. Anderson 107 N.W.2d 647 Minn. 1961
    In Cuney v. Campbell, 76 Minn. 59, 62 , , we said: “* * * The gravamen of the action is the neglect of the owner of an animal known by him to be vicious, and liable to attack and injure people, to restrain him so as to prevent the risk of damage.
  • Harris v. Breezy Point Lodge, Inc. 56 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 1953
  • Harris v. Breezy Point Lodge, Inc. 56 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 1953
    2 Hagerty v. Radle, 228 Minn. 487 , 37 N. W. (2d) 819 ; Lee v. Seekins, 208 Minn. 546 , ; Cuney v. Campbell, 76 Minn. 59 , ; Fake v. Addicks, 45 Minn. 37 , .
  • Hagerty v. Radle 37 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1949
  • Hagerty v. Radle 37 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1949
    In Cuney v. Campbell, 76 Minn. 59, 62 , , this court said: “The authorities are all agreed that, in order to render the owner liable in damages to any one bitten by his dog, it must be proved, not only that the dog is ferocious, but that the owner has knowledge of his ferocious nature or propensity.
  • Lee v. Seekins 294 N.W. 842 Minn. 1940
  • Lee v. Seekins 294 N.W. 842 Minn. 1940
    Fake v. Addicks, 45 Minn. 37 , , 20 A. S. R. 716; Cuney v. Campbell, 76 Minn. 59, 62 , ; Erickson v. Bronson, 81 Minn. 258 , ; Nelson v. Am.
  • Olson v. Pederson 288 N.W. 856 Minn. 1939
  • Olson v. Pederson 288 N.W. 856 Minn. 1939
    Cuney v. Campbell, 76 Minn. 59 , .
  • Perazzo v. Ortega 241 P. 518 Ariz. 1925
  • Maron v. Marciniak 205 N.W. 894 Minn. 1925
  • Maron v. Marciniak 205 N.W. 894 Minn. 1925
    Cuney v. Campbell, 76 Minn. 59 , ; Erickson v. Bronson, 81 Minn. 258 , ; Nelson v. Am.
  • Haugen v. Sundseth 118 N.W. 666 Minn. 1908
    Bank of Mankato v. Buchan, 76 Minn. 54 , .
  • Erickson v. Bronson 81 Minn. 258 Minn. 1900
  • Erickson v. Bronson 81 Minn. 258 Minn. 1900
    The case cannot be distinguished from Cuney v. Campbell, 76 Minn. 59 , .