DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Peterson Ex Rel. Peterson v. Richfield Plaza, Inc., 89 N.W.2d 712.

29 citing documents.

  • In the Matter of: Danielle Ann Oldenburg v. Daniel Frederick Schanze, (A23-1837), ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • In the Matter of: Danielle Ann Oldenburg v. Daniel Frederick Schanze, (A23-1837), ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    803(4); see Peterson v. Richfield Plaza, Inc., d 712, 719, 721-22 (Minn. 1958) (applying this exception to permit testimony of a physician about certain statements made to him by a patient).
  • Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
  • Foss v. Kincade 766 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 2009
  • Explained Foss v. Kincade 766 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 2009
    Peterson v. Richfield Plaza, Inc., 252 Minn. 215 , ).
  • Foss v. Kincade 746 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Foss v. Kincade 746 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    Minn.1986) (stating that improper use of a product “need not be anticipated by the manufacturer” (emphasis added)); see also Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., (holding that risk of collision between toboggan and parked snowmobile “was not one which Yamaha was required to anticipate or protect against” (emphasis added)); cf. Peterson v. Richfield Plaza, Inc., 252 Minn. 215, 222 , (finding foreseeability but acknowledging that cases could be found expressing a contrary view on the foreseeab
  • State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    Peterson v. Richfield Plaza, Inc., 252 Minn. 215, 228 , -22 (1958); see also United States v. Beaulieu, 194 F.3d 918, 921 (8th Cir.1999) (“[A] de-clarant’s statements relating the identity of the individual allegedly responsible for [her] injuries or condition would seldom, if ever, be reasonably pertinent to treatment or diagnosis.”) (quotation om
  • Sirek v. State, Department of Natural Resources 496 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1993
  • Sirek v. State, Department of Natural Resources 496 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1993
    See, e.g., Peterson v. Rich-field Plaza, Inc., 252 Minn. 215 , (imposing liability on a store owner when a child fell off a balcony because the owner knew that children often were in the area and sometimes wandered away from their parents).
  • State v. Bellotti 383 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Bellotti 383 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    See Peterson v. Richfield Plaza, Inc., 252 Minn. 215
  • D.A.H. v. G.A.H. 371 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Dah v. Gah 371 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Dah v. Gah 371 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    See Peterson v. Richfield Plaza, Inc., 252 Minn. 215, 225 , (possibility that a four-year-old child would fabricate the symptoms of a head injury was "extremely remote").
  • D.A.H. v. G.A.H. 371 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    See Peterson v. Richfield Plaza, Inc., 252 Minn. 215, 225 , (possibility that a four-year-old child would fabricate the symptoms of a head injury was “extremely remote”).
  • Szyplinski v. Midwest Mobile Home Supply Co. 241 N.W.2d 306 Minn. 1976
  • Szyplinski v. Midwest Mobile Home Supply Co. 241 N.W.2d 306 Minn. 1976
    d in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it, and (d) the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved, and (e) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.” In Peterson v. Richfield Plaza, Inc. 252 Minn. 215, 221 , we applied the Restatement rule to children licensees, stating: “* * * A child
  • Simchuck v. Fullerton 216 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 1974
  • Simchuck v. Fullerton 216 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 1974
    him by the patient for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of such injury or illness, whether such statement relates to conditions or symptoms existing at the time of the consultation * * * or to past symptoms and conditions, as long as they relate to the injury or illness for which the patient seeks treatment and are relevant to the issue then under inquiry.” Peterson v. Richfield Plaza, Inc. 252 Minn. 215, 229
  • McCormack v. Hankscraft Company 154 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1967
  • McCormack v. Hankscraft Company 154 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1967
    19 Peterson v. Richfield Plaza, Inc. 252 Minn. 215 , 89 N. W. (2d) 712 .
  • Larson v. Montpetit 147 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1966
  • Larson v. Montpetit 147 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1966
    Since a defendant may not be relieved of liability by an intervening cause which could reasonably be foreseen, Johnson v. Scully Const. Co. 255 Minn. 41 , 95 N. W. (2d) 409 ; Peterson v. Richfield Plaza, Inc. 252 Minn. 215 , 89 N. W. (2d) 712 ; Crawford v. Woodrich Const. Co. 239 Minn. 12 , 57 N. W. (2d) 648 ; Eichten v. Central Minn. Co-op.
  • Slinker v. Wallner 103 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1960
  • Slinker v. Wallner 103 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1960
    an Legion, 241 Minn. 46 , 62 N. W. (2d) 354 (child injured while sliding down chute); Davies v. Land O’ Lakes Racing Assn. 244 Minn. 248 , 69 N. W. (2d) 642 (child drowned after falling into drainage pit); Knox v. City of Granite Falls, 245 Minn. 11 , 72 N. W. (2d) 67 , 53 A. L. R. (2d) 1091 (child burned by kerosene flare set out as warning on construction job); Peterson v. Richfield Plaza, Inc. 252 Minn. 215 , 89 N. W. (2d) 712 (child injured when he fell from balcony in store); Johnson v. Cle
  • Dornberg v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 91 N.W.2d 178 Minn. 1958
  • Dornberg v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 91 N.W.2d 178 Minn. 1958
    Co. 218 Minn. 273 , 15 N. W. (2d) 487 .” Contentions of defendant With reference to the impropriety of *61 permitting plaintiffs physician to express an opinion based in part on plaintiff’s narrative as to her past pain, suffering, and as to improvement after the first accident are governed by our recent decision in Peterson v. Richfield Plaza, Inc. 252 Minn. 215 , 89 N. W. (2d) 712 , where the same question was presented.