Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Donald v. Moses, 94 N.W.2d 255.

38 citing documents.

opc7021302-040103.pdf Minn. Ct. App. 2023
opc7021302-040103.pdf Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Donald v. Moses, 254 Minn. 186, 194
Brandon Grim, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
1 (Minn. 1959); First Baptist Church of St.
First Baptist Church of St. Paul v. City of St. Paul 884 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2016
First Baptist Church of St. Paul v. City of St. Paul 884 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2016
See Donald v. Moses, 254 Minn. 186, 196, (“[I]t is clear in this state that the duty to keep sidewalks and streets in a safe condition is a responsibility which the municipality retains at all times as a primary duty.”).
Stelter v. Chiquita Processed Foods, L.L.C. 658 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Stelter v. Chiquita Processed Foods, L.L.C. 658 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
See Donald v. Moses, 254 Minn. 186, 194
Johnson v. Jensen 433 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Johnson v. Jensen 433 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Donald v. Moses, 254 Minn. 186, 194
Huver Ex Rel. Huver v. Opatz 392 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 1986
Huver Ex Rel. Huver v. Opatz 392 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 1986
Huver argues this reading of Johnson , permitting a township to contractually delegate its duty of construction and maintenance, is in conflict with our decision in Donald v. Moses, 254 Minn. 186
Lillemoen v. Gregorich 256 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 1977
Lillemoen v. Gregorich 256 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 1977
See, Muckier v. Buchl, 276 Minn. 490 , Donald v. Moses, 254 Minn. 186
Nebben v. Kosmalski 239 N.W.2d 234 Minn. 1976
Nebben v. Kosmalski 239 N.W.2d 234 Minn. 1976
Donald v. Moses, 254 Minn. 186
Kallevig v. Holmgren 197 N.W.2d 714 Minn. 1972
Kallevig v. Holmgren 197 N.W.2d 714 Minn. 1972
Rule 51, Rules of Civil Procedure; Donald v. Moses, 254 Minn. 186
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
7 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 51, states: “* * * An error in the instructions with respect to fundamental law or controlling principle maybe assigned in a motion for a new trial though it was not otherwise called to the attention of the court.” Donald v. Moses, 254 Minn. 186 , 94 N. W. (2d) 255 .
Parness v. Economics Laboratory, Inc. 170 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1969
Parness v. Economics Laboratory, Inc. 170 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1969
See, Donald v. Moses, 254 Minn. 186 , 94 N. W. (2d) 255 .
Lenz v. City of Minneapolis 167 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 1969
Lenz v. City of Minneapolis 167 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 1969
See, Donald v. Moses, 254 Minn. 186 , 94 N. W. (2d) 255 .
Hedglin v. Church of St. Paul of Sauk Centre 158 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1968
Hedglin v. Church of St. Paul of Sauk Centre 158 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1968
Under these circumstances she assumed the risk of proceeding as she did.” In Donald v. Moses, 254 Minn. 186 , 94 N. W. (2d) 255, 256 , we held: *126 “Where there is a reasonably safe alternative way open, the plaintiff’s choice of the dangerous way is a free one and may under such circumstances amount to both contributory negligence and assumption of risk.” In Huyink v. Hart Publications, 212 Minn. 87 , 2 N. W. (2d) 552 , w
Stephenson v. F. W. Woolworth Co. 152 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1967
Stephenson v. F. W. Woolworth Co. 152 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1967
Donald v. Moses, 254 Minn. 186
Muckler v. Buchl 150 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1967
Muckler v. Buchl 150 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1967
8 Less than a decade ago, in Donald v. Moses, 254 Minn. 186, 192 , 94 N. W. (2d) 255, 260 , a street accident case, it was held error to submit the defense of assumption of risk to the jury because: “It is clear that the trial court after most carefully considering the issues has reached the conclusion that it erred in submitting the affirmative defense of assumption of risk
Peterson v. WT Rawleigh Company 144 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1966
Peterson v. WT Rawleigh Company 144 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1966
5 Donald v. Moses, 254 Minn. 186 , 94 N. W. (2d) 255 .
Cogswell v. U. S. S. Yorktown Post 178, VFW 143 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1966
Cogswell v. U. S. S. Yorktown Post 178, VFW 143 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1966
In a memorandum attached to its order denying this motion, the court stated: “The plaintiff contends that the case of Donald vs. Moses, 254 Minn. 186 , is controlling, and * * * that the court committed error by submitting assumption of risk when there was no available choice by the plaintiff whereby the risk may have been avoided.
Smith v. Village of Hibbing 136 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 1965
Smith v. Village of Hibbing 136 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 1965
Hall v. *3 City of Anoka, 256 Minn. 134 , 97 N. W. (2d) 380 ; Donald v. Moses, 254 Minn. 186 , 94 N. W. (2d) 255 .
Hacker v. Berkner 117 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1962
Distinguished Hacker v. Berkner 117 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1962
Donald v. Moses, 254 Minn. 186 , 94 N. W. (2d) 255 ; Schrader v. Kriesel, 232 Minn. 238 , 45 N. W. (2d) 395 .
Hansen v. City of Minneapolis 113 N.W.2d 508 Minn. 1962

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by