Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Strand v. Village of Watson, 72 N.W.2d 609.

47 citing documents.

Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2008
Clark v. Peterson 741 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Clark v. Peterson 741 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
See Strand v. Village of Watson, 245 Minn. 414, 416 , (addressing sufficiency of evidence to create fact question as to whether individual was obviously intoxicated); see also Jaros v. Warroad Mun.
Granville v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 732 N.W.2d 201 Minn. 2007
Granville v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 732 N.W.2d 201 Minn. 2007
Where a suspension or exception is repealed, the original statute becomes effective again, see Strand v. Village of Watson, 245 Minn. 414, 420 , superseded by statute, Act of Feb.
Englund v. MN CA Partners/MN Joint Ventures 555 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Englund v. MN CA Partners/MN Joint Ventures 555 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Rambaum, d at 22 (nonmembers or guests of club); (after-hours); Kvanli v. Village of Watson, 272 Minn. 481, 484 , (minors); Strand v. Village of Watson, 245 Minn. 414, 419-20 , d *331 609, 614 (1955) (intoxicated persons); Fest v. Olson, 138 Minn. 31, 33 , 163 N.W.
Kryzer v. Champlin American Legion No. 600 494 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1992
Kryzer v. Champlin American Legion No. 600 494 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1992
Thirty-seven years ago this court ruled that a claimant seeking recovery pursuant to the civil damage act must show that the defendant illegally sold intoxicating liquor which caused intoxication and “that such intoxication was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.” Strand v. Village of Watson, 245 Minn. 414, 419 , (emphasis supplied).
Kryzer v. Champlin American Legion No. 600 481 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Kryzer v. Champlin American Legion No. 600 481 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See Strand v. Village of Watson, 245 Minn. 414, 419
Paulson v. Lapa, Inc. 450 N.W.2d 374 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Paulson v. Lapa, Inc. 450 N.W.2d 374 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Strand v. Village of Watson, 245 Minn. 414, 422
Jewett v. Deutsch 437 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Jewett v. Deutsch 437 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Strand v. Village of Watson, 245 Minn. 414, 422
Rambaum v. Swisher 423 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Rambaum v. Swisher 423 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See, e.g., Murphy v. Hennen, 264 Minn. 457, 461-62 , (sales to minors); Strand v. Village of Watson, 245 Minn. 414, 422 , (sales to obviously intoxicated persons); Fest v. Olson, 138 Minn. 31, 33 , 163 N.W.
Gutwein v. Edwards 419 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Gutwein v. Edwards 419 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Strand v. Village of Watson, 245 Minn. 414, 422
Larson v. Carchedi 419 N.W.2d 132 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Larson v. Carchedi 419 N.W.2d 132 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Strand v. Village of Watson, 245 Minn. 414, 422
McGuire v. C & L RESTAURANT INC. 346 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 1984
McGuire v. C & L RESTAURANT INC. 346 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 1984
See Strand v. Village of Watson, 245 Minn. 414, 419 , Beck v. Groe, 245 Minn. 28, 33-34
Hollerich v. City of Good Thunder 340 N.W.2d 665 Minn. 1983
Hollerich v. City of Good Thunder 340 N.W.2d 665 Minn. 1983
In 1955, in Strand v. Village of Watson, 245 Minn. 414 , this court held that the prohibition against sales to “obviously intoxicated” persons in section 340.14, subd.
Robinson v. Lamott 289 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1979
Robinson v. Lamott 289 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1979
See, e. g., Strand v. Village of Watson, 245 Minn. 414 , Beck v. Groe, 245 Minn. 28 , Swor-ski, supra.
Seeley Ex Rel. Seeley v. Sobczak 281 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1979
Seeley Ex Rel. Seeley v. Sobczak 281 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1979
In Strand v. Village of Watson, 245 Minn. 414 , addressing whether plaintiff was required to prove that the driver (urinalysis showed .27 percent alcohol by weight) who caused plaintiff’s injury was obviously intoxicated, as provided by § 340.14, or was merely required to prove that the driver was intoxicated, as provided by the village ordi
State v. Hicks 222 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 1974
State v. Hicks 222 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 1974
3 For discussions of the difference between being intoxicated and being under the influence, see Strand v. Village of Watson, 245 Minn. 414 , State v. Graham, supra.
Trail v. Christian 213 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 1973
Trail v. Christian 213 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 1973
6 Defendant, in his argument before the trial court and this court, insists that this jurisdiction has steadfastly adhered to the common-law rule of nonliability and cites Strand v. Village of Watson, 245 Minn. 414 , and Beck v. Groe, 245 Minn. 28 , in support of his contention.
Mjos Ex Rel. Mjos v. Village of Howard Lake 178 N.W.2d 862 Minn. 1970
Mjos Ex Rel. Mjos v. Village of Howard Lake 178 N.W.2d 862 Minn. 1970
1, provided that “[n]o intoxicating liquor shall be sold, furnished, or delivered for any purpose to * * * any person obviously intoxicated * * *.” In Strand v. Village of Watson, 245 Minn. 414, 420 , 72 N. W. (2d) 609, 614 , this explanation of the situation prevailing until the amendment of 1967 is to be found: “* * * By Ex.
Trail v. Village of Elk River 175 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1970
Trail v. Village of Elk River 175 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1970
In Strand v. Village of Watson, 245 Minn. 414 , 72 N. W. (2d) 609 , we said that since § 340.14 became effective at a later date, in so far as the two statutes are inconsistent, § 340.14 repealed the inconsistent portion of § 340.73.
Skaja v. Andrews Hotel Company 161 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1968
Skaja v. Andrews Hotel Company 161 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1968
3 See, Strand v. Village of Watson, 245 Minn. 414 , 72 N. W. (2d) 609 .
Dahl v. NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK MINNEAPOLIS 121 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1963
Dahl v. NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK MINNEAPOLIS 121 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1963
See, Murphy v. Hennen, 264 Minn. 457 , 119 N. W. (2d) 489 ; Randall v. Village of Excelsior, 258 Minn. 81 , 103 N. W. (2d) 131 ; Ritter v. Village of Appleton, 254 Minn. 30 , 93 N. W. (2d) 683 ; Hartwig v. Loyal Order of Moose, supra; Schmidt v. Driscoll Hotel, Inc. 249 Minn. 376 , 82 N. W. (2d) 365 ; Adamson v. Dougherty, supra; Strand v. Village of Watson, 245 Minn. 414 , 72 N. W. (2d) 609 ; Hahn v. City of Ortonville, supra; Note, 46 Minn. L. Rev. 169 .
Murphy v. Hennen 119 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1963
Murphy v. Hennen 119 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1963
7 Hahn v. City of Ortonville, supra; Strand v. Village of Watson, 245 Minn. 414 , 72 N. W. (2d) 609 .
Ritter v. Village of Appleton. 93 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 1958
Ritter v. Village of Appleton. 93 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 1958
See, Strand v. Village of *38 Watson, 245 Minn. 414 , 72 N. W. (2d) 609 .
Hartwig v. Loyal Order of Moose, Brainerd Lodge No. 1246 91 N.W.2d 794 Minn. 1958
Hartwig v. Loyal Order of Moose, Brainerd Lodge No. 1246 91 N.W.2d 794 Minn. 1958
Commenting upon a somewhat similar situation in Strand *363 v. Village of Watson, 245 Minn. 414, 424 , 72 N. W. (2d) 609, 616 , this court said: “* * * Claiming surprise, plaintiff was permitted to impeach his testimony by showing prior contrary statements, but, even assuming that the jury discarded the testimony of Martinson entirely, the best that can be said is that Martinson was intoxicated at the time of th