DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cooper v. Hoeglund, 22 N.W.2d 450.

36 citing documents.

  • Kronzer v. First Nat. Bank of Minneapolis 235 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1975
  • Kronzer v. First Nat. Bank of Minneapolis 235 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1975
    12 See, Restatement, Torts 2d, § 288(a) and Comment b; Cooper v. Hoeglund, 221 Minn. 446 , Andrews v. Lofton, 80 Ga.
  • Villegas v. Bryson 494 P.2d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • Daigle v. Twin City Ready Mix Concrete Co. 128 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 1964
  • Daigle v. Twin City Ready Mix Concrete Co. 128 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 1964
    Cooper v. Hoeglund, 221 Minn. 446 , 22 N. W. (2d) 450 ; Walker v. Stecher, 219 Minn. 152 , 17 N. W. (2d) 317 ; Wilson v. Davidson, 219 Minn. 42 , 17 N. W. (2d) 31 ; Olson v. Neubauer, 211 Minn. 218 , ; Bartley v. Fritz, 205 Minn. 192 , .
  • Kellerman v. Nelson 122 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1963
  • Kellerman v. Nelson 122 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1963
    1 Fleenor v. Rowley, 198 Minn. 163 , ; Ryan v. Griffin, 241 Minn. 91 , 62 N. W. (2d) 504 ; Cooper v. Hoeglund, 221 Minn. 446 , 22 N. W. (2d) 450 ; Northern Liquid Gas Co. v. Hildreth (8 Cir.) 180 F. (2d) 330.
  • Lux v. Robinson 96 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1959
  • Lux v. Robinson 96 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1959
    “* * * N0t only is such a demonstration no part of the function of an appellate court, but it serves no useful purpose.” Cooper v. Hoeglund, 221 Minn. 446, 449 , 22 N. W. (2d) 450, 453 .
  • Sternitzke v. Donahue's Jewelers 83 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 1957
  • Sternitzke v. Donahue's Jewelers 83 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 1957
    Bank, 236 Minn. 123 , 52 N. W. (2d) 718 ; Cooper v. Hoeglund, 221 Minn. 446 , 22 N. W. (2d) 450 ; 13 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Hondl v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 82 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1957
  • Hondl v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 82 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1957
    “(1) involves an invasion of the particular interest protected by the enactment, (2) was caused by the particular hazard or form of harm against which the enactment was designed to give protection, and (3) if it was proximately caused by the violation.” LaBelle v. Swanson, 248 Minn. 35, 41 , 78 N. W. (2d) 358, 363 ; Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476, 481 , ; Cooper v. Hoeglund, 221 Minn. 446 , 22 N. W. (2d) 150 ; Westlund v. Iverson, 154 Minn. 52 , ; Everett v. G. N. Ry.
  • Lynghaug v. Payte 76 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1956
  • Lynghaug v. Payte 76 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1956
    16 Cooper v. Hoeglund, 221 Minn. 446 , 22 N. W. (2d) 450 ; Prosser, Torts (2 ed.) § 34, p. 157; Restatement, Torts, §§ 281, 286.
  • Mottinger v. Halfman 76 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1956
  • Mottinger v. Halfman 76 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1956
    He had the right to assume that Kreuger would comply with highway regulations, Cooper v. Hoeglund, 221 Minn. 446 , 22 N. W. (2d) 450 ; Holmberg v. Villaume, 158 Minn. 442 , , and the latter’s failure to observe them was directly responsible for placing him in a position of peril with the resulting consequences to Mottinger.
  • Price v. Grieger 70 N.W.2d 421 Minn. 1955
  • Price v. Grieger 70 N.W.2d 421 Minn. 1955
    Likewise, in Cooper v. Hoeglund, 221 Minn. 446 , 22 N. W. (2d) 450, § 602 .01 was not involved.
  • Devall v. Standard Oil Co. 57 N.W.2d 835 Minn. 1953
  • Standafer v. First National Bank 52 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 1952
  • Standafer v. First National Bank 52 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 1952
    Co. 234 Minn. 280 , 48 N. W. (2d) 431 ; Cooper v. Hoeglund, 221 Minn. 446 , 22 N. W. (2d) 450 , and cases cited therein; Hahn v. Diamond Iron Works, Inc. 221 Minn. 33 , 20 N. W. (2d) 704 ; Crosby v. G. N. Ry.
  • Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Danberry 48 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1951
  • Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Danberry 48 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1951
    2 Nolan v. Newfert, 179 Minn. 293 , ; Cooper v. Hoeglund, 221 Minn. 446 , 22 N. W. (2d) 450 .
  • Lovel v. Squirt Bottling Co. of Waconia, Inc. 48 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 1951
  • Lovel v. Squirt Bottling Co. of Waconia, Inc. 48 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 1951
    The rule governing such a situation is expressed in Cooper v. Hoeglund, 221 Minn. 446, 453 , 22 N. W. (2d) 450, 455 , as follows: “* * * the reporter was permitted to read answers to specific questions denied by the witness.
  • Froden v. Ranzenberger 41 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1950
  • Froden v. Ranzenberger 41 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1950
    Cooper v. Hoeglund, 221 Minn. 446 , 22 N. W. (2d) 450 ; Magnuson v. Burgess, 124 Minn. 374 , .
  • Holz v. Pearson 39 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 1949
  • Holz v. Pearson 39 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 1949
    Cooper v. Hoeglund, 221 Minn. 446 , 22 N. W. (2d) 450 ; Magnuson v. Burgess, 124 Minn. 374 , ; 1 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Rivera v. Mandsager 36 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 1949
  • Rivera v. Mandsager 36 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 1949
    Maust v. Maust, 222 Minn. 135 , 23 N. W. (2d) 537 ; Cooper v. Hoeglund, 221 Minn. 446 , 22 N. W. (2d) 450 ; Holmes v. Conter, 212 Minn. 394 , 4 N. W. (2d) 106 ; Magnuson v. Burgess, 124 Minn. 374 , , In many cases, this court has said that on such appeal the evidence will be viewed in the light most favorable to the party prevailing in the trial court, Rochester Bread Co. v. Rapinwax Paper
  • Clark v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. 33 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1948
  • Clark v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. 33 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1948
    Magnuson v. Burgess, 124 Minn. 374 , ; Holmes v. Conter, 212 Minn. 394 , 4 N. W. (2d) 106 ; Haglin v. Ashley, 212 Minn. 445 , 4 N. W. (2d) 109 ; Cooper v. Hoeglund, 221 Minn. 446 , 22 N. W. (2d) 450 .
  • Kapla v. Lehti 30 N.W.2d 685 Minn. 1948
  • Kapla v. Lehti 30 N.W.2d 685 Minn. 1948
    Cooper v. Hoeglund, 221 Minn. 446 , 22 N. W. (2d) 450 ; Walker v. Stecher, 219 Minn. 152 , 17 N. W. (2d) 317 ; Wilson v. Davidson, 219 Minn. 42 , 17 N. W. (2d) 31 ; Olson v. Neubauer, 211 Minn. 218 , ; Bartley v. Fritz, 205 Minn. 192 , .