Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Larson v. Township of New Haven, Olmsted County, 165 N.W.2d 543.

26 citing documents.

Alice Peterson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
of New Haven, 282 Minn. 447, 454, (stating actual or constructive notice of a defect is not required if a municipality created the defect).
Schroeder v. St. Louis County 708 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2006
Jindra v. City of St. Anthony 533 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Jindra v. City of St. Anthony 533 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See Larson v. Township of New Haven, 282 Minn. 447, 453
Holmquist v. State 425 N.W.2d 230 Minn. 1988
Holmquist v. State 425 N.W.2d 230 Minn. 1988
Larson v. Township of New Haven, 282 Minn. 447, 452
Berg v. City of St. Paul 414 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Berg v. City of St. Paul 414 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Larson v. Township of New Haven, Olmsted County, 282 Minn. 447, 454
Holmquist v. State 409 N.W.2d 243 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Holmquist v. State 409 N.W.2d 243 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Larson v. Township of New Haven, Olmsted County, 282 Minn. 447 , the Minnesota Supreme Court recognized the general rule that a duty to warn arises only if the municipality has actual knowledge or constructive notice of alleged roadway defects or dangerous conditions.
Nusbaum v. County of Blue Earth 411 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Nusbaum v. County of Blue Earth 411 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In a recent case, however, this court stated the general rule that a duty to warn arises only if the state has actual knowledge or constructive notice of alleged roadway defects or dangerous conditions is inapplicable if the “defect * * * is one which [the state] created.” (quoting Larson v. Township of New Haven, Olmsted County, 282 Minn. 447, 454 , ).
Wornson v. Chrysler Corp. 361 N.W.2d 493 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Distinguished Wornson v. Chrysler Corp. 361 N.W.2d 493 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Chrysler attempts to establish negligent conduct on the part of Burnsville through a common law duty to use reasonable care in the performance of its statutorily created duties, relying on Larson v. Township of New Haven, 282 Minn. 447
Elias v. City of St. Paul 350 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Elias v. City of St. Paul 350 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Appellant’s arguments rest principally on the Minnesota Supreme Court decision in Larson v. Township of New Haven, 282 Minn. 447
Zinnel v. Berghuis Construction Co. 274 N.W.2d 495 Minn. 1979
Distinguished Zinnel v. Berghuis Construction Co. 274 N.W.2d 495 Minn. 1979
5 The present case is distinguishable from our decision in Smith v. Lafortune, 288 Minn. 135 , Larson v. Township of New Haven, 282 Minn. 447 , Dornack v. Barton Const. Co., 272 Minn. 307 , Majerus v. Guelsow, 262 Minn. 1
Poppenhagen v. SORNSIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 220 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1974
Poppenhagen v. SORNSIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 220 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1974
Larson v. Township of New Haven, 282 Minn. 447
Ronnigen v. Hertogs 199 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 1972
Ronnigen v. Hertogs 199 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 1972
The detailed facts giving rise to plaintiff’s property-damage claim against the municipalities can be found in Larson v. Township of New Haven, 282 Minn. 447
Smith Ex Rel. Smith v. Lafortune 179 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1970
Smith Ex Rel. Smith v. Lafortune 179 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1970
On the contrary, the verdicts seem to us to be supported by our decision in Larson v. Township of New Haven, 282 Minn. 447 , 165 N. W. (2d) 543 .
Erschens Ex Rel. Erschens v. County of Lincoln 177 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1970
Erschens Ex Rel. Erschens v. County of Lincoln 177 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1970
See, Larson v. Township of New Haven, 282 Minn. 447 , 165 N. W. (2d) 548 .