DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Priewe v. Bartz, 83 N.W.2d 116.

30 citing documents.

  • Erica Robinson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    The precise nature and manner of the injury need not be by another patron); d 134, 137 (Minn. 1959); (tavern patron assaulted by another patron); (same); Curran v. Olson, 92 N.W.
  • Henson v. Uptown Drink, LLC 922 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2019
  • Henson v. Uptown Drink, LLC 922 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2019
    Alholm v. Wilt , , 490 (Minn. 1986) ; see also, e.g. , Swanson v. Dugout, Inc. , 256 Minn. 371 , , 215 (1959) (explaining the duty of an "operator of an establishment where beer and liquor are sold"); Priewe v. Bartz , 249 Minn. 488 , , 119 (1957) (expressing "no doubt" that a tavern operator "owed a duty to those coming upon his premises"); Windorski v. Doyle , 219 Minn. 402 , , 145 (1945) (stating the "general" rule that a bar owner "was required to use reasonable care to protect its guests an
  • James F. Edgar, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Truesdell, 256 Minn. 360, 364, (concluding that “there is ample evidence in the record from which the jury could find that both [assailants] were intoxicated to the point where the proprietor or his servant should have been aware of the fact that their conduct would lead to trouble” after observing quarrels, arguments, and inflammatory language); Priewe v. Bartz, 249 Minn. 488, 493, (concluding that district court properly denied motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial bec
  • Alholm v. Wilt 394 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1986
  • Alholm v. Wilt 394 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1986
    There exists no duty to use “the highest degree of care.” Filas v. Doner, 300 Minn. 137 , Priewe v. Bartz, 249 Minn. 488, 491
  • Alholm v. Wilt 380 N.W.2d 851 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Alholm v. Wilt 380 N.W.2d 851 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    See, e.g., Filas v. Daher, 300 Minn. 137 , Priewe v. Bartz, 249 Minn. 488
  • Fallin v. Maplewood-North St. Paul District No. 622 362 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1985
  • Fallin v. Maplewood-North St. Paul District No. 622 362 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1985
    Paul District No. 622, (footnote omitted), citing Priewe v. Bartz, 249 Minn. 488
  • Fallin v. Maplewood-North St. Paul District No. 622 348 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Fallin v. Maplewood-North St. Paul District No. 622 348 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    1 Priewe v. Bartz, 249 Minn. 488
  • Alholm v. Wilt 348 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Alholm v. Wilt 348 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    See, e.g., Klingbeil v. Truesdell, 256 Minn. 360 , Priewe v. Bartz, 249 Minn. 488 , Sylvester v. Northwestern Hospital of Minneapolis, 236 Minn. 384
  • Mettling v. Mulligan 225 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 1975
  • Mettling v. Mulligan 225 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 1975
    1 Windorski v. Doyle, 219 Minn. 402 , Priewe v. Bartz, 249 Minn. 488 , Klingbeil v. Truesdell, 256 Minn. 360
  • Filas v. Daher 218 N.W.2d 467 Minn. 1974
  • Filas v. Daher 218 N.W.2d 467 Minn. 1974
    In Priewe v. Bartz, 249 Minn. 488 , , 70 A. L. R. 2d 621 (1957), there were allegations and evidence that the defendant patron, who *140 struck another with a beer glass, was intoxicated and belligerent, that there was reason to believe he might commit acts which would result in injury to others, and that the defendant waitress failed
  • Evanish v. v. F. W. Post No. 2717 130 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 1964
  • Evanish v. v. F. W. Post No. 2717 130 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 1964
    1 Mastad v. Swedish Brethren, 83 Minn. 40, 43 , ; Knight v. Powers Dry Goods Co. Inc. 225 Minn. 280, 286 , 30 N. W. (2d) 536, 539 ; Priewe v. Bartz, 249 Minn. 488, 492 , 83 N. W. (2d) 116, 119 , 70 A. L. R. (2d) 621; Ruehling v. American Legion Pavilion, Inc. 255 Minn. 391, 392 , 96 N. W. (2d) 702, 703 ; Swanson v. The Dugout, Inc. 256 Minn. 371 , 98 N. W. (2d) 213 .
  • Klingbeil v. Truesdell 98 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 1959
  • Swanson v. the Dugout, Inc. 98 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 1959
  • Swanson v. the Dugout, Inc. 98 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 1959
    The plaintiff seeks recovery on the theory that the defendant bar owner is liable under the holdings in Windorski v. Doyle, 219 Minn. 402 , 18 N. W. (2d) 142 ; Priewe v. Bartz, 249 Minn. 488 , 83 N. W. (2d) 116 ; and Mastad v. Swedish Brethren, 83 Minn. 40 , , 53 L. R. A. 803.
  • Klingbeil v. Truesdell 98 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 1959
    It is unnecessary to labor this point further than to state that the issue here is controlled by our decision in Windorski v. Doyle, 219 Minn. 402 , 18 N. W. (2d) 142 , *363 and Priewe v. Bartz, 249 Minn. 488 , 83 N. W. (2d) 116 .
  • Anderson v. Mid-Motors, Inc. 98 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 1959
  • Anderson v. Mid-Motors, Inc. 98 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 1959
    7 Priewe v. Bartz, 249 Minn. 488 , 83 N. W. (2d) 116 ; Fieve v. Emmeck, 248 Minn. 122 , 78 N. W. (2d) 343 ; Swigerd v. City of Ortonville, 246 Minn. 339 , 75 N. W. (2d) 217 (proximate cause); Leman v. Standard Oil Co. 246 Minn. 271 , 74 N. W. (2d) 513 (standard of care of a driver of a car in which plaintiff was riding as passenger); Greenberg v. Hol
  • Ruehling v. American Legion Pavilion, Inc. 96 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1959
  • Ruehling v. American Legion Pavilion, Inc. 96 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1959
    1 E. g., Priewe v. Bartz, 249 Minn. 488 , 83 N. W. (2d) 116 ; 1 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel 95 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1959
  • Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel 95 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1959
    85 A. S. R. 446, 448, we said: «* * * All who engage in a public business of that nature are bound to protect their guests, both in person and property, from acts and misconduct of wrongdoers permitted to remain upon the premises; and the rules of law applicable to the common carrier are applicable alike to them.” See, also, Windorski v. Doyle, 219 Minn. 402 , 18 N. W. (2d) 142 ; Priewe v. Bartz, 249 Minn. 488 , 83 N. W. (2d) 116 .