DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Beaudette v. Frana, 173 N.W.2d 416.

49 citing documents.

  • Rebecca A. Niebuhr v. Jacob Sieberg, Timothy Sieberg Minn. 2026
  • Rebecca A. Niebuhr, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    The Siebergs argue that Miller is distinguishable because it was decided in the context of a different type of immunity—interspousal immunity—that “was disfavored for many years and has now been abolished.” (abrogating “absolute defense of interspousal immunity in actions for tort”).
  • Bentley S. Poitra, et al., Minn. 2021
    See, –75 (Minn. 1966) (rejecting immunity for a child in a suit brought by a parent); (abrogating unenforceable.
  • Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 813 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 2012
  • Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 813 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 2012
    Beaudette v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366 , (abrogating interspousal immunity for actions in tort); see also Barile v. Anderson, 295 Minn. 152 , (rejecting interspousal immunity as a defense to a negligence action brought by husband against wife).
  • In Re Individual 35w Bridge Litigation 786 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • In Re Individual 35w Bridge Litigation 786 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    The supreme court has abolished inter-spousal tort immunity, Beaudette v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366, 373 , and the immunity of a parent from suit by an unemancipated child
  • Lickteig v. Kolar 782 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 2010
  • Lickteig v. Kolar 782 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 2010
    See, (abrogating parental immunity); Beaudette v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366, 373 , (abrogating interspousal immunity); Balts v. Balts, 273 Minn. 419, 430, 433 , 75 (1966) (rejecting immunity for a child in a suit brought by a parent, concluding that “public policy ...
  • Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. v. Newton 646 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. v. Newton 646 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    624, 624 (1920) (emphasis added), overruled on other grounds by Beaudette v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366 , 373 n. 10, , 420 n. 10 (1969).
  • State v. Gianakos 644 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Gianakos 644 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 2002
    A sample of our opinions demonstrates the depth and breadth of this tradition: State v. Mayhood, 308 Minn. 259, 263 , (deferring to the legislature the policy decision whether to extend the rule of legal unity of spouses); Beaudette v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366, 368-69, 373 , -18, 420 (1969) (abrogating the absolute defense of interspousal immunity in actions for tort only after legislature declined to do so upon invitation by the court in deference to traditional legislative determination of signifi
  • G.A.W. v. D.M.W. 596 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • Gaw v. Dmw 596 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • Gaw v. Dmw 596 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    Beaudette v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366
  • G.A.W. v. D.M.W. 596 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    Beaudette v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366
  • McGuire v. C & L RESTAURANT INC. 346 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 1984
  • McGuire v. C & L RESTAURANT INC. 346 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 1984
    Beaudette v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366 , Silesky v. Kelman, 281 Minn. 431 , Balts v. Balts, 273 Minn. 419
  • Pautz v. Cal-Ros, Inc. 340 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 1983
  • Pautz v. Cal-Ros, Inc. 340 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 1983
    Inasmuch as interspousal immunity and parent-child immunity, once an absolute defense to tort liability, have been abolished in Minnesota, Beaudette v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366 , Silesky v. Kelman, 281 Minn. 431 , it is apparent that if the appellant vendor is liable to these plaintiffs, so also is the respondent husband/father whom the plaintiffs allege was intoxicated.
  • Thompson v. Estate of Petroff 319 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 1982
  • Thompson v. Estate of Petroff 319 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 1982
    Although we generally have applied decisions that abolish a tort immunity prospectively, see, e.g., Nieting v. Blondell, 306 Minn. 122, 132 , Beaudette v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366, 373 , Silesky v. Kelman, 281 Minn. 431, 443 , we believe that in this case the most equitable result will be achieved by applying the new rule retroactively.
  • Anderson Ex Rel. Anderson v. Stream 295 N.W.2d 595 Minn. 1980
  • Anderson Ex Rel. Anderson v. Stream 295 N.W.2d 595 Minn. 1980
    See, also, Baudette v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366
  • Nelson v. Nelson 283 N.W.2d 375 Minn. 1979
  • Hime v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 284 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 1979
  • Nelson v. Nelson 283 N.W.2d 375 Minn. 1979
    Defendant does not so much dispute this evidence as he argues that a different result is compelled by this court’s opinion in Beaudette v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366
  • Hime v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 284 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 1979
    See, also, Beaudette v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366 , where we abrogated interspousal immunity in actions for tort.
  • Schumann Ex Rel. Peterson v. City of St. Paul 268 N.W.2d 903 Minn. 1978
  • Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1977
  • Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1977
    222 , recognized the husband’s right to recover.” A more recent case upholding the rule of Boland v. Morrill is Janke v. Janke, 292 Minn. 296 , which, after considering the rule in light of the then recent abrogation of interspousal tort immunity in Beaudette v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366 , upheld the husband’s exclusive right to sue for his wife’s medical expenses.
  • Ascheman v. Village of Hancock 254 N.W.2d 382 Minn. 1977
  • Ascheman v. Village of Hancock 254 N.W.2d 382 Minn. 1977
    Beaudett v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366
  • Plain v. Plain 240 N.W.2d 330 Minn. 1976
  • Plain v. Plain 240 N.W.2d 330 Minn. 1976
    4 Beaudette v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366
  • Kisch v. Skow 233 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 1975
  • Kisch v. Skow 233 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 1975
    8 Overruled with respect to the application of interspousal immunity in Beaudette v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366, 373
  • Barile v. Anderson 203 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 1972
  • Barile v. Anderson 203 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 1972
    The issue presented is whether interspousal immunity should be applied where the cause of action arose prior to our decision in Beaudette v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366 , abolishing interspousal immunity in actions for tort prospectively only, but the parties were married and the lawsuit was commenced after the date of said decision.
  • Janke v. Janke 195 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 1972
  • Janke v. Janke 195 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 1972
    *299 The question becomes important since we abrogated the inter-spousal immunity between husband and wife in Beaudette v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366 , thereby giving one spouse a right to sue the other for injuries resulting from tort.
  • Windauer v. O'CONNOR 477 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • B. F. Griebenow, Inc. v. Anderson 177 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1970
  • B. F. Griebenow, Inc. v. Anderson 177 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1970
    The injustice of imposing liability on defendants who have relied on family immunity without notice of a contemplated departure from it is thus avoided.” Other aspects of intrafamily immunity were prospectively overruled in Silesky v. Kelman, 281 Minn. 431, 443 , 161 N. W. (2d) 631, 638 (parental immunity from suit by a child arising out of á tort action) and Beaudette v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366, 373 , 173 N. W. (2d) 416, 420 (interspousal immunity), in each of which decisions — and based upon the
  • Schultz v. Chicago and Northwestern Railway Co. 175 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 1970
  • Schultz v. Chicago and Northwestern Railway Co. 175 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 1970
    This was the approach used in Balts v. Balts, 273 Minn. 419 , 142 N. W. (2d) 66 (tort action by parent against child); Silesky v. Kelman, supra (tort action by child against parent); and Beaudette v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366 , 173 N. W. (2d) 416 (interspousal tort suit).
  • Reese v. Henke 174 N.W.2d 690 Minn. 1970
  • Reese v. Henke 174 N.W.2d 690 Minn. 1970
    Since the marriage did not occur before trial of defendants’ cross-claims for contribution, under the procedural circumstances peculiar to this case there is no factual foundation for either the application of the rule of interspousal immunity or, in view of our recent decision in Beaudette v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366 , 173 N. W. (2d) 416 , for the advocacy, by the defendants adverse to its application, of retrospective abrogation of the rule.