Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Depue v. Flatau, 111 N.W. 1.

33 citing documents.

Gilbertson v. Leininger 599 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1999
Gilbertson v. Leininger 599 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1999
819 (1935) (refusing to impose liability on a hospital for a patient’s suicide because the hospital was not equipped to treat mental illnesses); see also Depue v. Floteau, 100 Minn. 299, 303 , 111 N.W.
Henkemeyer v. Boxall 465 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Henkemeyer v. Boxall 465 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Finally, we note that appellant’s reliance upon Depue v. Flatau, 100 Minn. 299 , 111 N.W.
TIEDEMAN BY TIEDEMAN v. Morgan 435 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
TIEDEMAN BY TIEDEMAN v. Morgan 435 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
A special duty of care in controlled circumstances was first recognized in Depue v. Flateau, 100 Minn. 299 , 111 N.W.
Stevens v. Thielen 394 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Stevens v. Thielen 394 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(husband who leaves intoxicated wife on a highway at night has a continuing duty to protect her from foreseeable harm if she is under a disability and if he is “in charge” of her); Depue v. Flatau, 100 Minn. 299 , (where invitee becomes disabled or ill while on premises, landowner owes invitee duty to exercise reasonable care and to not expose him to further danger by sending away unattended).
Hoffman v. Wiltscheck 379 N.W.2d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hoffman v. Wiltscheck 379 N.W.2d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Depue v. Flatau, 100 Minn. 299, 305 , 111 N.W.
Regan v. Stromberg 285 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 1979
Regan v. Stromberg 285 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 1979
See, Depue v. Flatau, 100 Minn. 299 , 111 N.W.
Schmidt v. Beninga 173 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 1970
Schmidt v. Beninga 173 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 1970
See, Depue v. Flatau, 100 Minn. 299 , , 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 485.
True v. Older 34 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 1948
True v. Older 34 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 1948
“That by reason of said illegal operation of abortion and as a direct and proximate result of the wrongful, illegal, and unlawful acts of the said defendants and of the failure of said defendants to provide proper medical care for the said llene Eagen, she died on the 24th day of March, 1947.” These allegations bring the case within the rule stated in Depue v. Flatau, 100 Minn. 299 , , 8 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Mulcrone v. Wagner 4 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 1942
Roadman v. C. E. Johnson Motor Sales 297 N.W. 166 Minn. 1941
Roadman v. C. E. Johnson Motor Sales 297 N.W. 166 Minn. 1941
Thus, in Depue v. Flatau, 100 Minn. 299, 303, 304 , , 8 L.R.A.
Wilke v. Chicago Great Western Railroad 251 N.W. 11 Minn. 1933
Wilke v. Chicago Great Western Railroad 251 N.W. 11 Minn. 1933
Depue v. Flatau, 100 Minn. 299, 303 , , 8 L.R.A.
Hunter v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 230 N.W. 793 Minn. 1930
Hunter v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 230 N.W. 793 Minn. 1930
630 ; Depue v. Flatau, 100 Minn. 299 , 111 N.W.
Erickson v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 205 N.W. 889 Minn. 1925
Erickson v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 205 N.W. 889 Minn. 1925
It was negligent in failing so to do.” The conclusion is strengthened by the doctrine of Depue v. Flatau, 100 Minn. 299 , , 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 485.
Skillings v. Allen 173 N.W. 663 Minn. 1919
Skillings v. Allen 173 N.W. 663 Minn. 1919
Depue v. Flatau, 100 Minn. 299 , , 8 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Mazey v. Loveland 158 N.W. 44 Minn. 1916
Distinguished Mazey v. Loveland 158 N.W. 44 Minn. 1916
The case of Dupue v. Flatau, 100 Minn. 299 , , relied upon by plaintiff, is clearly distinguishable in its facts and therefore not here in point.
Farrell v. Minneapolis & Rainy River Railway Co. 141 N.W. 491 Minn. 1913
Farrell v. Minneapolis & Rainy River Railway Co. 141 N.W. 491 Minn. 1913
The doctrine is nowhere better illustrated than in the case of Depue v. Flatau, 100 Minn. 299 , , 8 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co. 124 N.W. 221 Minn. 1910
Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co. 124 N.W. 221 Minn. 1910
In Depue v. Flatau, 100 Minn. 299 , , 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 485, this court held that where the plaintiff, while lawfully in the defendants’ house, became so ill that he was incapable of traveling with safety, the defendants were responsible to him in damages for compelling him to leave the premises.