DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Dellwo v. Pearson, 107 N.W.2d 859.

26 citing documents.

  • JHP 2309 Lyndale, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    In the second, the supreme court stated that “it is clear .
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    1 (Minn. 1961) (“Although a rigorous definition of proximate cause continues to elude us, nevertheless it is clear .
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Dellwo v. Pearson, 259 Minn. 452, 454-55
  • Laila Jama, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    .” Dellwo v. Pearson, 259 Minn. 452, 455, (quotation omitted).
  • Kimberly Shierts, Trustee for the Heirs of Jodie Shierts v. University of Minnesota Physicians, Regents of the University … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • Kimberly Shierts, Trustee for the Heirs of Jodie Shierts v. University of Minnesota Physicians, Regents of the University … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    Put another way, “negligence is tested by foresight but proximate cause is determined by hindsight.” Dellwo v. Pearson, 259 Minn. 452, 456
  • Rowe v. Munye 702 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 2005
  • Huebner Ex Rel. Lane v. Koelfgren 519 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Huebner Ex Rel. Lane v. Koelfgren 519 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    Steven claims the trial court misstated the law in holding him to the adult standard of care, arguing that the “adult” standard is limited to children operating automobiles, airplanes, and powerboats, citing Dellwo v. Pearson, 259 Minn. 452
  • McClintock v. Roger's Cablesystems of Minneapolis Ltd. Partnership 478 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • McClintock v. Roger's Cablesystems of Minneapolis Ltd. Partnership 478 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    See, e.g., Quinn v. Winkel’s, Inc., (duty issue); Dellwo v. Pearson, 259 Minn. 452, 453 , (duty issue); Fjellman v. Weller, 213 Minn. 457, 469 , (causation issue); (causation issue).
  • Miller Ex Rel. Miller v. State 306 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1981
  • Miller Ex Rel. Miller v. State 306 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1981
    Dellwo v. Pearson, 259 Minn. 452
  • In Re the Welfare of S. W. T. 277 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1979
  • In Re the Welfare of S. W. T. 277 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1979
    dents.” On review, the juvenile court applied a "tricter standard: “While children are normally held to a different standard of care than adults by *514 reason of their infantile status, nevertheless in dealing with matters of extreme danger to the general public such as guns, children are held to the adult standard of care as a measure of protection for other persons, [citing, Dellwo v. Pearson, 259 Minn. 452 , ]” The juvenile court erred in applying this standard.
  • Orwick v. Belshan 231 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1975
  • Orwick v. Belshan 231 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1975
    9 JIG II 140 reads: “A direct cause is a cause which had a substantial part in bringing about the (harm) (accident) (injury) (collision) (occurrence) [either immediately or through happenings which follow one after another].” 10 Dellwo v. Pearson, 259 Minn. 452 , Seward v. Minneapolis St.
  • Schmidt v. Beninga 173 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 1970
  • Schmidt v. Beninga 173 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 1970
    Otherwise expressed, the law is that if the act is one which the party ought, in the exercise of ordinary care, to have anticipated was liable to result in injury to others, then he is liable for any injury proximately resulting from it, although he could not have anticipated the particular injury which did happen.” In Dellwo v. Pearson, 259 Minn. 452, 456 , 107 N. W. (2d) 859, 862 , 97 A. L. R. (2d) 866, 870, we affirmed the rule of the *491 Christianson case relating to proximate cause and sta
  • Okrina v. Midwestern Corporation 165 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1969
  • Okrina v. Midwestern Corporation 165 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1969
    In Dellwo v. Pearson, 259 Minn. 452, 456 , 107 N. W. (2d) 859, 862 , 97 A. L. R. (2d) 866, Mr. Justice Loevinger summarized the rule thus: “* * * It is enough to say that negligence is tested by foresight but proximate cause is determined by hindsight.” In Colla v. Mandella, 1 Wis.
  • Hanson v. Christensen 145 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 1966
  • Hanson v. Christensen 145 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 1966
    He contends, however, that the statement found in Meagher v. Hirt, 232 Minn. 336, 340 , 45 N. W. (2d) 563, 565 , applies to the facts in the instant case and that “[h]e can only be held liable for negligence if there was a foreseeable risk of injury to children under the circumstances.” In Dellwo v. Pearson, 259 Minn. 452 , 107 N. W. (2d) 859 , 97 A. L. R. (2d) 866, the matter of foreseeability in negligence cases was reconsidered.
  • State v. Smith 119 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1962
  • State v. Smith 119 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1962
    of any individual, or without a design to effect death, by a person engaged in the commission of, or in an attempt to commit, any felony, except rape, assault with an attempt to commit rape, indecent assault, or sodomy, either upon or affecting the person killed or otherwise, is murder in the third degree * * For definitions or explanations of proximate cause and causation, see Dellwo v. Pearson, 259 Minn. 452, 454 , 107 N. W. (2d) 859, 861 ; Slotnick v. Cooley, 166 Tenn.