DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bolsinger, 21 N.W.2d 480.

120 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Robert Daniel Neumiller Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • State of Minnesota v. Robert Daniel Neumiller Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    Gross negligence is a manifestly smaller amount of watchfulness and circumspection than the circumstances require of a person of ordinary prudence.[’] (quoting Altman v. Aronson, 121 N.E.
  • Minn. 2022
    We have observed that “[t]he rationale for the canon is that related statutes, although separate, should be considered as ‘one systematic body [of] law.’ ” –38 (Minn. 2017) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Bolsinger , ).
  • In re the Estate of: Pauline Mary Serpico, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    While admitting that his driving conduct was negligent, Vadner contends that it did not “represent the complete lack of care that characteri zes the substantially higher standard of gross negligence.” “Gross negligence” requires “very great negligence, or the abse nce of slight diligence, or the want of even scant care.” (quotations omitted); see State v. Al-Naseer , (“Although Bolsinger was decided in 1946, the principles set out there are still va lid today.”).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    State v. Bolsinger , (quoting Altman v. Aronson , 121 N.E.
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    However, “[r]eckless conduct is treated as separate from negligence.” State v. Bolsinger , 221 Minn. 154, 160
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    (In 8 chronological order) State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154, 159, State v. Meany, 262 Minn. 491, 496, Kissner, d at 321; Hegstrom, d at 702 -03; Al-Naseer, d at 752.
  • Amanda M. Doub, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Minnesota caselaw recognizes that there is a difference between ordinary negligence and gross negligence , and the term “gross negligence” is frequently used in Minnesota.7 See State v. Bolsinger , 221 Minn. 154, 1 59, 5 (1946) (stating that “[g]ross negligence is substantially and appreciably higher in magnitude than ordinary negligence.
  • State v. Thonesavanh 904 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2017
  • State v. Thonesavanh 904 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2017
    The rationale for the canon is that related stat *438 utes, although separate, should be considered as “one systematic body [of] law.” State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154
  • State v. Petersen 799 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Petersen 799 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    Each statute should be construed in the light of, with reference to, and in connection with the others.” State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154, 162
  • State v. Engle 743 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Engle 743 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2008
    See State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154, 157
  • State v. Bussmann 741 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Bussmann 741 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 2007
    But due process requirements are satisfied “by specifying standards of conduct in terms that have acquired meaning involving reasonably definite standards either according to the common law or by long and general usage.” State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154, 167
  • Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC 705 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Al-Naseer 690 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Al-Naseer 690 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 2005
    State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154, 159
  • Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC 686 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC 686 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    The Minnesota Supreme Court first provided a detailed definition for gross negli *552 gence in State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154, 159
  • State v. Craven 628 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Craven 628 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154, 165
  • State v. Herbert 601 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Herbert 601 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    If this court is to construe these statutes in pari materia, that is, as “one systematic body [of] law,” State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154, 156 , it must assign the phrase “at the time of the offense” its general temporal meaning and hold that MinmStat.
  • State v. Lucas 578 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Lucas 578 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154, 160-161
  • State v. Hegstrom 543 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Hegstrom 543 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154, 159
  • State v. Kissner 541 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Kissner 541 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154, 158
  • Kedzior v. NORWEST BANK MINN., NAT. ASS'N 527 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • Kedzior v. NORWEST BANK MINN., NAT. ASS'N 527 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    See State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154 , -87 (1946) ("the distinctions made in different statutes as manifested by the difference of terminology used should be observed").
  • State v. Plummer 511 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Plummer 511 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    (citing State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154, 159 , ).
  • Boop v. City of Lino Lakes 502 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • Boop v. City of Lino Lakes 502 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    § 645.08(1) (1990); see State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154, 157-61 , -87 (1946) (to interpret statute, accepted legal definitions of “reckless” and “gross negligence” apply).
  • State v. McKown 475 N.W.2d 63 Minn. 1991
  • State v. McKown 475 N.W.2d 63 Minn. 1991
    In State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154 , the appellant contended that a statute allowing the prosecution of an individual who took the life of another by operating a vehicle in a “reckless or grossly negligent manner,” Minn.Stat.
  • State v. Miller 471 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Miller 471 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    In State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154 , the supreme court, drawing on the law of Massachusetts, enunciated the criminal gross negligence standard in Minnesota.
  • Amoco Pipeline Co. v. Minnesota Valley Landscaping, Inc. 467 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • Amoco Pipeline Co. v. Minnesota Valley Landscaping, Inc. 467 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    § 645.08(1) (1986); see also State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154, 160-61 , cf. City of St.
  • State v. Grover 437 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Grover 437 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1989
    For example, in State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154, 167, 169 , -90 (1946), we held that “[t]he requirements of due process are satisfied by specifying standards of conduct in terms that have acquired meaning involving reasonably definite standards either according to the common law or by long and general usage” and that “[njegligence as a test of cri
  • Ackerman v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 435 N.W.2d 835 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Ackerman v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 435 N.W.2d 835 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    A further explanation of “gross negligence” is given in State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154 , where construction of a Minnesota criminal vehicular homicide statute which used alternative standards of recklessness or gross negligence was given.
  • State v. Bicek 429 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Criticized State v. Bicek 429 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    See State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154, 157-58