Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Anderson v. Settergren, 111 N.W. 279.

42 citing documents.

Larson v. New Richland Care Center 538 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Larson v. New Richland Care Center 538 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Anderson v. Settergren, 100 Minn. 294, 295-96 , 111 N.W.
Estate of Hernandez v. Bd. of Regents 866 P.2d 1330 Ariz. 1994
Hage v. Stade 304 N.W.2d 283 Minn. 1981
Trail v. Christian 213 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 1973
Trail v. Christian 213 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 1973
The New Jersey court in Rappaport relied by way of analogy on the Minnesota case of Anderson v. Settergren, 100 Minn. 294 , to avoid the defense of the tavern owner under the common-law theory based on causation and foreseeability.
Dix v. Harris Machinery Co. 60 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 1953
Dix v. Harris Machinery Co. 60 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 1953
Judd v. Landin, supra; Dux v. Ringdahl, 182 Minn. 611 , ; Anderson v. Settergren, 100 Minn. 294 , ; 4 Dunnell, Dig.
Judd v. Landin 1 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 1942
Judd v. Landin 1 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 1942
Anderson v. Settergren, 100 Minn. 294 , ; Dux v. Ringdahl, 182 Minn. 611 , ; see also 19 Minn. L. Rev. 666 .
Kaiser v. Butchart 274 N.W. 680 Minn. 1937
Kaiser v. Butchart 274 N.W. 680 Minn. 1937
R. 47; Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103 , , 12 A. S. R. 698; Perry v. Tozer, 90 Minn. 431 , , 101 A. S. R. 416; Anderson v. Settergren, 100 Minn. 294 , ; Schaar v. Conforth, 128 Minn. 460 , ; Frederick V. McRae, 157 Minn. 366 , .
Dux v. Ringdahl 235 N.W. 383 Minn. 1931
Dux v. Ringdahl 235 N.W. 383 Minn. 1931
Anderson v. Settergren, 100 Minn. 294 , 111 H. W. 279; Howley v. Scott, 123 Minn. 159 , , 51 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Corn v. Sheppard 229 N.W. 869 Minn. 1930
Corn v. Sheppard 229 N.W. 869 Minn. 1930
Anderson v. Settergren, 100 Minn. 294 , ; Kunda v. Briarcombe Farm Co. 149 Minn. 206 , ; State v. Lehman, 131 Minn. 427 , , Ann. Cas.
Stevens v. North States Motor, Inc. 201 N.W. 435 Minn. 1925
Stevens v. North States Motor, Inc. 201 N.W. 435 Minn. 1925
Anderson v. Settergren, 100 Minn. 294 , ; Howley v. Scott, 123 Minn. 159 , , 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 137; Tholkes v. Decock, 125 Minn. 507 , , 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 142.
Frederick v. McRae 196 N.W. 270 Minn. 1923
Frederick v. McRae 196 N.W. 270 Minn. 1923
698; Perry v. Tozer, 90 Minn. 438 , ; Anderson v. Settergren, 100 Minn. 294 , ; Schaar v. Conforth, 128 Minn. 460 , ; Farrell v. G. O. Miller Co. 147 Minn. 52 , .
Westlund v. Iverson 191 N.W. 253 Minn. 1922
Westlund v. Iverson 191 N.W. 253 Minn. 1922
Co. 58 Minn. 540 , ; Anderson v. Settergren, 100 Minn. 294 , ; Clapper v. Dickinson, 137 Minn. 415 , .
Kunda v. Briarcombe Farm Co. 183 N.W. 134 Minn. 1921
Kunda v. Briarcombe Farm Co. 183 N.W. 134 Minn. 1921
If this conclusion does not follow as a matter of law from the facts of the ease (Anderson v. Settergren, 100 Minn. 29 4, ), the question of proximate cause was at least one for the jury.
Farrell v. G. O. Miller Co. 179 N.W. 566 Minn. 1920
Farrell v. G. O. Miller Co. 179 N.W. 566 Minn. 1920
203 ; Anderson v. Settergren, 100 Minn. 294 , .
Fairchild v. Fleming 147 N.W. 434 Minn. 1914
Fairchild v. Fleming 147 N.W. 434 Minn. 1914
But the question for whose benefit or protection a statutory duty was imposed depends on the purview of the legislature in the particular statute, and the language which they have there employed.” Anderson v. Settergren, 100 Minn. 294 , : We have no doubt that section 16, chapter 365, p. 499, Laws 1911, in relation to the speed of motor vehicles, was intended to protect the public generally against the dangerous speed of which motor vehicles are capable of being run, and does not exclude those w
Dahl v. Valley Dredging Co. 145 N.W. 796 Minn. 1914
Dahl v. Valley Dredging Co. 145 N.W. 796 Minn. 1914
498; Anderson v. Settergren, 100 Minn. 294 , ; Anderson v. Smith, 104 Minn. 40 , ; Froeberg v. Smith, 106 Minn. 72 , ; Vills v. City of Clo *94 quet, 119 Minn. 277 , , 42 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Howley v. Scott 143 N.W. 257 Minn. 1913
Howley v. Scott 143 N.W. 257 Minn. 1913
136 , 20 L. ed. 101; Anderson v. Settergren, 100 Minn. 294 , .
Vills v. City of Cloquet 138 N.W. 33 Minn. 1912
Vills v. City of Cloquet 138 N.W. 33 Minn. 1912
McDowell v. Village of Preston, 104 Minn. 263 , ; Anderson v. Settergren, 100 Minn. 294 , .
Froeberg v. Smith 118 N.W. 57 Minn. 1908
Froeberg v. Smith 118 N.W. 57 Minn. 1908
483, and Anderson v. Settergren, 100 Minn. 294 , .
Anderson v. Smith 115 N.W. 743 Minn. 1908
Anderson v. Smith 115 N.W. 743 Minn. 1908
Teal v. American Mining Co., 84 Minn. 320 , ; Thomas v. Smith, 90 Minn. 379 , ; Mattson v. Minnesota & North Wisconsin R. Co., supra; Anderson v. Settergren, 100 Minn. 294 , .
Elmgren v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 112 N.W. 1067 Minn. 1907
Elmgren v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 112 N.W. 1067 Minn. 1907
And see Anderson v. Settergren, 100 Minn. 294 , .
Everett v. Great Northern Railway Co. 111 N.W. 281 Minn. 1907
Everett v. Great Northern Railway Co. 111 N.W. 281 Minn. 1907
Anderson v. Settergren, supra, page 294, ; Akers v. Chicago, St.