DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Klingbeil v. Truesdell, 98 N.W.2d 134.

50 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
    In Klingbeil v. Truesdell , 256 Minn. 360 , we held that "there is ample evidence in the record from which the jury could find that [the patrons] 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."
  • James F. Edgar, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    See Klingbeil v. 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, argu
  • Dourney v. CMAK Corp. 796 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • Dourney v. CMAK Corp. 796 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    But “[t]he standard of conduct required by law is not perfect conduct.” Klingbeil v. Truesdell, 256 Minn. 360, 366
  • Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda 789 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 2010
  • Explained Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda 789 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 2010
    See Klingbeil v. Truesdell, 256 Minn. 360, 366
  • Shea v. Esensten 622 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • Shea v. Esensten 622 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    Cross-examination of an adverse witness is essential to ensure a fair trial and has been characterized as an “inviolate right.” Klingbeil v. Truesdell, 256 Minn. 360, 366
  • Bigay v. Garvey 562 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Bigay v. Garvey 562 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    Cross-examination of an adverse witness is essential to ensure a fair trial and has been characterized as an “inviolate right.” Klingbeil v. Truesdell, 256 Minn. 360, 366 , see also Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 691 , 51 S.Ct.
  • 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, e.g., Klingbeil v. Truesdell, 256 Minn. 360, 362-63 , -38 (1959).
  • Hunt v. Regents of University 446 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Hunt v. Regents of University 446 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    624 (1931); Klingbeil v. Truesdell, 256 Minn. 360, 366
  • 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
  • Vaughn v. Love 347 N.W.2d 818 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Vaughn v. Love 347 N.W.2d 818 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    “The latitude to be allowed in cross examination on the merits is largely within the discretion of the trial court and its action will not be reversed on appeal except for a clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Pearson, 260 Minn. 477, 488 , citing Klingbeil v. Truesdell, 256 Minn. 360
  • Devine v. McLain 306 N.W.2d 827 Minn. 1981
  • Devine v. McLain 306 N.W.2d 827 Minn. 1981
    Minnesota law imposes upon a tavern operator “the duty to see to it that a patron is not injured by vicious or drunken individuals whom he permits to frequent his establishment.” Klingbeil v. Truesdell, 256 Minn. 360, 363 , see Minn.Stat.
  • Frey Ex Rel. Frey v. Snelgrove 269 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1978
  • Frey Ex Rel. Frey v. Snelgrove 269 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1978
    Klingbeil v. Truesdell, 256 Minn. 360
  • Bigham v. J. C. Penney Co. 268 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1978
  • Bigham v. J. C. Penney Co. 268 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1978
    In Klingbeil v. Truesdell, 256 Minn. 360 , the trial court was held to have been correct in denying counsel of one codefendant permission to cross-examine the other concerning matters in which their interests were the same.
  • State v. Dille 258 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Dille 258 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 1977
    E. g., Klingbeil v. Truesdell, 256 Minn. 360
  • Ossenfort Ex Rel. Ossenfort v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc. 254 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1977
  • Ossenfort Ex Rel. Ossenfort v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc. 254 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1977
    See, Klingbeil v. Truesdell, 256 Minn. 360
  • Mettling v. Mulligan 225 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 1975
  • Mettling v. Mulligan 225 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 1975
    Similarly, as plaintiff points out, this court noted in Klingbeil v. Truesdell, 256 Minn. 360, 363 , : “He [the tavern owner] has the duty to see to it that a patron is not injured by vicious or drunken individuals whom he permits to frequent his establishment.” (Italics supplied.)
  • Filas v. Daher 218 N.W.2d 467 Minn. 1974
  • Filas v. Daher 218 N.W.2d 467 Minn. 1974
    Windorski v. Doyle, 219 Minn. 402 , ; Klingbeil v. Truesdell, 256 Minn. 360 , Swanson v. The Dugout, Inc. 256 Minn. 371
  • Trail v. Christian 213 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 1973
  • Trail v. Christian 213 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 1973
    Windorski v. Doyle, 219 Minn. 402 , Klingbeil v. Truesdell, 256 Minn. 360
  • Berry v. Haertel 170 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 1969
  • Berry v. Haertel 170 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 1969
    In determining whether a person is a business visitor, we have applied the rule adopted by Restatement, Torts, § 332: “A business visitor is a person who is invited or permitted to enter or remain on land in the possession of another for a purpose directly or indirectly connected with business dealings between them.” 1 See, Klingbeil v. Truesdell, 256 Minn. 360 , 98 N. W. (2d) 134 ; Meyer v. Mitchell, 248 Minn. 397 , 80 N. W. (2d) 450 ; Yeager v. Chapman, 233 Minn. 1 , 45 N. W. (2d) 776 , 22 A.
  • Lommen v. Adolphson & Peterson Construction Co. 168 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 1969
  • Lommen v. Adolphson & Peterson Construction Co. 168 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 1969
    2 See, Erickson v. Quarstad, 270 Minn. 42 , 132 N. W. (2d) 814 ; Klingbeil v. Truesdell, 256 Minn. 360 , 98 N. W. (2d) 134 ; Ahlstrom v. Minneapolis, St.
  • MacK v. McGrath 150 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 1967
  • MacK v. McGrath 150 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 1967
    1 Lieberman v. Korsh, 264 Minn. 234, 241 , 119 N. W. (2d) 180, 185 ; Capriotti v. Beck, 264 Minn. 39, 46 , 117 N. W. (2d) 563, 568 ; Klingbeil v. Truesdell, 256 Minn. 360, 368 , 98 N. W. (2d) 134, 141 ; Zaikaner v. Small, 256 Minn. 275, 281 , 98 N. W. (2d) 247, 251 ; Wilson v. Sorge, 256 Minn. 125, 132 , 97 N. W. (2d) 477, 483 .
  • Tonne v. Becker Grain & Lumber Company 139 N.W.2d 797 Minn. 1966
  • Tonne v. Becker Grain & Lumber Company 139 N.W.2d 797 Minn. 1966
    Bank, 243 Minn. 442 , 68 N. W. (2d) 362 ; Graalum v. Radisson Ramp, Inc. 245 Minn. 54 , 71 N. W. (2d) 904 ; Meyer v. Mitchell, 248 Minn. 397 , 80 N. W. (2d) 450 ; Lyon v. Dr. Scholl’s Foot Comfort Shops, Inc. 251 Minn. 285 , 87 N. W. (2d) 651 ; Klingbeil v. Truesdell, 256 Minn. 360 , 98 N. W. (2d) 134 .
  • Backman v. Fitch 137 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1965
  • Backman v. Fitch 137 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1965
    The problems faced by a self-employed plaintiff in proving loss of earnings is pointed out in the recent case of Klingbeil v. Truesdell, 256 Minn. 360 , 98 N. W. (2d) 134 , citing Wilson v. Sorge, supra.
  • State v. Pearson 110 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 1961
  • State v. Pearson 110 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 1961
    Klingbeil v. Truesdell, 256 Minn. 360 , 98 N. W. (2d) 134 .
  • Swanson v. the Dugout, Inc. 98 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 1959
  • Swanson v. the Dugout, Inc. 98 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 1959
    In Sylvester v. Northwestern Hospital, 236 Minn. 384 , 53 N. W. (2d) 17 ; Windorski v. Doyle, supra; Priewe v. Bartz, supra; and Klingbeil v. Truesdell, 256 Minn. 360 , 98 N. W. (2d) 134 , the person causing the harm was known to the defendant to be likely to do so because of his intoxication and manifestations of an inclination to fight and to cause trouble.