DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hirth v. Village of Long Prairie, 143 N.W.2d 205.

34 citing documents.

  • Wallin v. Letourneau 524 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Wallin v. Letourneau 524 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    (purpose of dram shop notice provision is to provide early opportunity to investigate, facilitate negotiation and settlement without litigation, correct defects before others suffer injury, and protect against stale and fraudulent claims); Hirth v. Village of Long Prairie, 274 Minn. 76, 79 , (purpose of notice to municipalities is to provide early opportunity to investigate, to settle meritorious claims without litigation, correct deficiencies in municipal functions, and protect against stale or
  • St. Peter Herald v. City of St. Peter 481 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • St. Peter Herald v. City of St. Peter 481 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    The trial court also alluded to the purpose for the notice of claim requirement as stated in Hirth v. Village of Long Prairie, 274 Minn. 76, 79 , : The principal purpose * * * is to protect against dissipation of public funds by requiring [notice] * * * so that [the municipality may] * * * investigate [the claim, and] settle those of merit without litigation.
  • Drewes v. First National Bank of Detroit Lakes 461 N.W.2d 389 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • Drewes v. First National Bank of Detroit Lakes 461 N.W.2d 389 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    Hirth v. Village of Long Prairie, 274 Minn. 76, 76
  • Larson v. State 451 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • Larson v. State 451 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    This notice requirement “provides the government with an early opportunity to investigate claims, facilitates settlement without litigation, allows the government to correct defects revealed before further injury occurs and protects against stale and fraudulent claims.” (citing Hirth v. Village of Long Prairie, 274 Minn. 76, 79 , -08 (1966)).
  • Doerr v. Clayson 375 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1985
  • Doerr v. Clayson 375 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1985
    Hirth v. Village of Long Prairie, 274 Minn. 76
  • Naylor v. Minnesota Daily 342 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 1984
  • Naylor v. Minnesota Daily 342 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 1984
    See Hirth v. Village of Long Prairie, 274 Minn. 76, 79 , -208 (1966).
  • Kossak v. Stalling 277 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1979
  • Kossak v. Stalling 277 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1979
    See, Hirth v. Village of Long Prairie, 274 Minn. 76
  • Kelly v. City of Rochester 231 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 1975
  • Kelly v. City of Rochester 231 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 1975
    This purpose was set forth in Hirth v. Village of Long Prairie, 274 Minn. 76, 79 , as follows: “* * * [T]o protect against dissipation of public funds by requiring that the municipality be promptly furnished with information concerning a claim against it so that full opportunity is provided to investigate it, to settle those of merit without litigation, and to cor
  • Seifert v. City of Minneapolis 213 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 1973
  • Seifert v. City of Minneapolis 213 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 1973
    The principal purpose of our notice-of-tort-claim statute, as set forth in Hirth v. Village of Long Prairie, 274 Minn. 76, 79 , is— “* * * to protect against dissipation of public funds by requiring that the municipality be promptly furnished with information concerning a claim against it so that full opportunity is provided to investigate it, to settle those of merit without litigation, and to correct any d
  • Altendorfer v. Jandric, Inc. 199 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1972
  • Altendorfer v. Jandric, Inc. 199 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1972
    The Grubaugh case, in any event, is inconsistent with our own opinions expressed in such cases as Hirth v. Village of Long Prairie, 274 Minn. 76 , Freeman v. City of Minneapolis, 219 Minn. 202 , and Frasch v. City of New Ulm, 130 *481 Minn. 41, , L. R. A. 1915E, 749 (1915).
  • Olander v. Sperry and Hutchinson Company 197 N.W.2d 438 Minn. 1972
  • Olander v. Sperry and Hutchinson Company 197 N.W.2d 438 Minn. 1972
    which the statute has been construed may well produce seemingly harsh results, but we are persuaded that it is so well-known and longstanding as to constitute a clear gloss upon the legislative enactment.” *166 The doctrine of strict compliance as to filing of timely notice has been followed even where there were allegations of fraud and concealment of injuries, Hirth v. Village of Long Prairie, 274 Minn. 76 , ; 1 ********x where there were representations to claimant by municipal officials that
  • McGuire v. Hennessy 193 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1971
  • McGuire v. Hennessy 193 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1971
    1 Hirth v. Village of Long Prairie, 274 Minn. 76 , Holsman v. Village of Bigfork, 284 Minn. 460 , Anderson v. City of Minneapolis, 287 Minn. 287 , Sorenson v. Minneapolis-St.
  • Almich v. Independent School District No. 393 190 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1971
  • Almich v. Independent School District No. 393 190 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1971
    No. 742, 286 Minn. 481 , but explained that the action was barred because no written notice of claim had been presented to the governing body of the school district, citing Hirth v. Village of Long Prairie, 274 Minn. 76
  • Wibstad v. City of Hopkins 190 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 1971
  • Wibstad v. City of Hopkins 190 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 1971
    See, also, Johnson v. City of Chisholm, 222 Minn. 179 , 24 N. W. (2d) 232 ; Hirth v. Village of Long Prairie, 274 Minn. 76 , 143 N. W. (2d) 205 ; and Jensen v. Downtown Auto Park, 289 Minn. 436 , 184 N. W. (2d) 777 .
  • Jensen v. Downtown Auto Park, Inc. 184 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1971
  • Jensen v. Downtown Auto Park, Inc. 184 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1971
    The trial court’s holding is in accord with numerous decisions of this court, some of the most recent of which are Hirth v. Village of Long Prairie, 274 Minn. 76 , 143 N. W. (2d) 205 ; Holsman v. Village of Bigfork, 284 Minn. 460 , 172 N. W. (2d) 320 ; and Grams v. Independent School Dist.
  • Grams v. Independent School District No. 742 176 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 1970
  • Grams v. Independent School District No. 742 176 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 1970
    The charter provision was complied with when the notice was left at the clerk’s office, in the hands of his assistant.” The trial court has cited Hirth v. Village of Long Prairie, 274 Minn. 76 , 143 N. W. (2d) 205 , and Johnson v. City of Chisholm, 222 Minn. 179 , 24 N. W. (2d) 232 , in its memorandum both as to the sufficiency of the service and the necessity of written notice.
  • Schultz v. Ruiz 161 N.W.2d 537 Minn. 1968
  • Schultz v. Ruiz 161 N.W.2d 537 Minn. 1968
    Hirth v. Village of Long Prairie, 274 Minn. 76 , 143 N.W.