Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Moore v. McDonald, 205 N.W. 894.

31 citing documents.

Wilmington Trust, National Association, Gregg Williams v. 700 HENNEPIN HOLDINGS, LLC, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Wilmington Trust, National Association, Gregg Williams v. 700 HENNEPIN HOLDINGS, LLC, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(holding that review of order denying injunction preventing construction of bridge was moot after bridge was completed); Farm Bureau Mut.
Katherine Gayl, Paul R. Scarpari v. City of Rosemount, Friedges Excavating, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Katherine Gayl, Paul R. Scarpari v. City of Rosemount, Friedges Excavating, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Relying on Moore v. McDonald, 165 Minn. 484, 205 N.W.
Obermoller v. Federal Land Bank of Saint Paul 409 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Obermoller v. Federal Land Bank of Saint Paul 409 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Respondent argues that Moore v. McDonald, 165 Minn. 484 , 205 N.W.
Ryman Ex Rel. Ryman v. Alt 266 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 1978
Judd v. Zupon, 297 Minn. 38 , Matson v. Kivimaki, supra; Clark v. Brings, supra; Maron v. Marciniak, 165 Minn. 156
Matson v. Kivimaki 200 N.W.2d 164 Minn. 1972
Maron v. Marciniak, 165 Minn. 156 , [1925]; Goodwin v. E. B. Nelson Grocery Co. [ 239 Mass. 232 , 132 N. E. 51 (1921)]; Merkle v. Schaeffer, 80 N. J. L. 74, 76 A. 326 [1910].” *155 Applying the same reasoning to the evidence in this case, there is no basis for submitting to the jury the question of the viciousness of this dog.
In Re Township of Glendale, Scott County 180 N.W.2d 925 Minn. 1970
Village of Savage v. Minnesota Municipal Commission 180 N.W.2d 925 Minn. 1970
Village of Savage v. Minnesota Municipal Commission 180 N.W.2d 925 Minn. 1970
Bennett v. Brown, 216 Minn. 135 , 12 N. W. (2d) 180 ; Dehning v. Marshall Produce Co. 215 Minn. 339 , 10 N. W. (2d) 229 ; McDonald v. Brewery and Beverage D. & H. & W. Union, 215 Minn. 274 , 9 N. W. (2d) 770 ; Moore v. McDonald, 165 Minn. 484 , ; Troy v. City of St.
In Re Township of Glendale, Scott County 180 N.W.2d 925 Minn. 1970
Bennett v. Brown, 216 Minn. 135 , ; Dehning v. Marshall Produce Co., 215 Minn. 339 , ; McDonald v. Brewery and Beverage Drivers and Helpers and Warehousemen, Local Union, 215 Minn. 274 , ; Moore v. McDonald, 165 Minn. 484 , 205 N.W.
Clark v. Brings 169 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1969
Maron v. Marciniak, 165 Minn. 156 , ; Goodwin v. E. B. Nelson Grocery Co. supra; Merkle v. Schaeffer, 80 N. J. L. 74, 76 A. 326 .
Anderson v. Anderson 107 N.W.2d 647 Minn. 1961
2 Maron v. Marciniak, 165 Minn. 156 , ; Olson v. Pederson, 206 Minn. 415 , .
H & S COMPANY v. Minnesota State Board of Pharmacy 104 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1960
H & S COMPANY v. Minnesota State Board of Pharmacy 104 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1960
therefore be rendered, the answer must be that the present condition of this action renders it a moot case and not a real controversy.” See, also, Mid-West Wine Co. Inc. v. Ericson, 227 Minn. 24 , 34 N. W. (2d) 738 ; Dehning v. Marshall Produce Co. 215 Minn. 339 , 10 N. W. (2d) 229 ; McDonald v. Brewery and Beverage D. & H. & W. Union, 215 Minn. 274 , 9 N. W. (2d) 770 ; Moore v. McDonald, 165 Minn. 484 , .
Barnes v. MacKen 90 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1958
Barnes v. MacKen 90 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1958
See, Dehning v. Marshall Produce Co. 215 Minn. 339 , 10 N. W. (2d) 229 ; McDonald v. Brewery and Beverage D. & H. & W. Union, 215 Minn. 274 , 9 N. W. (2d) 770 ; Moore v. McDonald, 165 Minn. 484 , ; Troy v. City of St.
Lavalle Ex Rel. Lavalle v. Kaupp 61 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 1953
5 As to common-law rules, see Maron v. Marciniak, 165 Minn. 156 , ; Olson v. Pederson, 206 Minn. 415 , ; Restatement, Torts, § 509, comments f and g; 13 Minn. L. Rev. 632 .
Hagerty v. Radle 37 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1949
Co. 154 Minn. 165 , ; Maron v. Marciniak, 165 Minn. 156 , ; Lee v. Seekins, 208 Minn. 546 , .
Dehning v. Marshall Produce Co. 10 N.W.2d 229 Minn. 1943
Dehning v. Marshall Produce Co. 10 N.W.2d 229 Minn. 1943
Paul, 155 Minn. 391 , ; Moore v. McDonald, 165 Minn. 484 , ; McDonald v. Brewery and Beverage D. & H. & W. Union, 215 Minn. 274 , 9 N. W. (2d) 770 .
McDonald v. Beverage Drivers & Helpers & Warehousemen 9 N.W.2d 770 Minn. 1943
McDonald v. Beverage Drivers & Helpers & Warehousemen 9 N.W.2d 770 Minn. 1943
Paul, 155 Minn. 391 , ; Moore v. McDonald, 165 Minn. 484 , ; Weber v. Nasser, 210 Cal.
Lee v. Seekins 294 N.W. 842 Minn. 1940
Co. 154 Minn. 165 , ; Maron v. Marciniak, 165 Minn. 156 , ; 2 Cooley, Torts (4 ed.) § 266, p. 310.
Olson v. Pederson 288 N.W. 856 Minn. 1939
The dispute is not Avhether the general rule is that the owner is liable for harm done by his dog, which he has reason to knoAv has dangerous propensities abnormal to its kind to cause harm to others, announced in cases like Maron v. Marciniak, 165 Minn. 156 , , and Fake v. Addicks, 45 Minn. 37 , , 22 A. S. R. 716, but whether the rule has any application at all to the facts of the instant case.
Doyle v. Ries 285 N.W. 480 Minn. 1939
Doyle v. Ries 285 N.W. 480 Minn. 1939
Cf. Moore v. McDonald, 165 Minn. 484 , .
First National Bank v. Fox 254 N.W. 8 Minn. 1934
Co. 165 Minn *321 30, ; Maron v. Marciniak, 165 Minn. 156 , ; Opperud v. Byram, 173 Minn. 378 , ; Street v. Rosebrock, 173 Minn. 522 , ; Powell v. Turnlund, 175 Minn. 361 , ; White v. Brainerd S. M. Co. 181 Minn. 366 , ; Johnson v. Mudbaden S. S. Co. 182 Minn. 476 , ; Ackermann v. Minnesota Comm’l Men’s Assn
Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Borgen 245 N.W. 615 Minn. 1932
Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Borgen 245 N.W. 615 Minn. 1932
Klemer v. City Recorder, 129 Minn. 535 , ; Sweeney v. Village of Ellsworth, 135 Minn. 474 , ; Moore v. McDonald, 165 Minn. 484 , .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by