Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Mathews v. Mills, 178 N.W.2d 841.

43 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Toby Earl Johnson 851 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Toby Earl Johnson 851 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 2014
See Mathews v. Mills, 288 Minn. 16, 22
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
State v. Miller 842 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Miller 842 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Mathews v. Mills, 288 Minn. 16, 20 , (holding that multiple civil defendants are jointly and severally liable when their independent consecutive acts of negligence cause indivisible injuries to the plaintiff); Wrabek v. Suchomel, 145 Minn. 468, 473 , 177 N.W.
Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 813 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 2012
Rowe v. Munye 702 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 2005
Heine v. Simon 702 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 2005
Rowe v. Munye 702 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 2005
A limited situation where we have shifted the burden to the defendant involves the single indivisible injury rule set forth in Mathews v. Mills, 288 Minn. 16
Heine v. Simon 702 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 2005
In Rowe , we addressed the rationale of Mathews v. Mills, 288 Minn. 16 , which led to placing the burden on the defendant to prove apportionment of damages in cases involving a single injury and jointly and severally liable tortfeasors.
Van Guilder v. National Freight, Inc. 686 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Van Guilder v. National Freight, Inc. 686 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
“[I]n a multiple-impact situation, the burden of proving that the harm can be separated falls on [the party] who contend[s] that it can be apportioned.” Mathews v. Mills, 288 Minn. 16, 22
Rowe v. Munye 674 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Rowe v. Munye 674 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Blatz distinguished between only one at-fault defendant’s liability for aggravation of a pre-existing condition or disability as described in Nelson and Schore and more than one at-fault defendants’ liability for tortious conduct that combines to harm the plaintiff described in Mathews v. Mills, 288 Minn. 16
Heine v. Simon 674 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Heine v. Simon 674 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Mathews v. Mills, 288 Minn. 16, 23
Morlock v. St. Paul Guardian Insurance Co. 650 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 2002
Bondy v. Allen 635 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Bondy v. Allen 635 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Mathews v. Mills, 288 Minn. 16, 21 , (emphasis omitted) (citations omitted).
Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
a, e. Minnesota adopted the Restatement concept of apportioning liability among at-fault defendants in Mathews v. Mills, 288 Minn. 16, 22
Canada by and Through Landy v. McCarthy 567 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1997
Canada by and Through Landy v. McCarthy 567 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1997
Mathews v. Mills, 288 Minn. 16, 20-21
Czarnecki v. Volkswagen of America 837 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Selisker 435 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Selisker 435 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See Mathews v. Mills, 288 Minn. 16, 21 , King v. Chicago, Minneapolis & St.
Bulau v. Hector Plumbing and Heating Co. 387 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Bulau v. Hector Plumbing and Heating Co. 387 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Mathews v. Mills, 288 Minn. 16, 21-22
Sabasko v. Fletcher 359 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Sabasko v. Fletcher 359 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Mathews v. Mills, 288 Minn. 16, 24-25
Mike's Fixtures, Inc. v. Bombard's Access Floor System, Inc. 354 N.W.2d 837 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Mike's Fixtures, Inc. v. Bombard's Access Floor System, Inc. 354 N.W.2d 837 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
We applied the “single injury” rule of Mathews v. Mills, 288 Minn. 16 , : [W]here it is not reasonably possible to make a division of the damage caused by separate acts of negligence, closely related in point of time, the negligent parties, even though they acted independently, are jointly and severally liable.
Lesmeister v. Dilly 330 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1983
Lesmeister v. Dilly 330 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1983
We applied the “single injury” rule of Mathews v. Mills, 288 Minn. 16 , : [Wjhere it is not reasonably possible to make a-division of the damage caused by separate acts of negligence, closely related in point of time, the negligent parties, even though they acted independently, are jointly and severally liable.
Maday v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis 311 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1981
Maday v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis 311 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1981
Mathews v. Mills, 288 Minn. 16
Delgado v. Lohmar 289 N.W.2d 479 Minn. 1979
Delgado v. Lohmar 289 N.W.2d 479 Minn. 1979
Matthews v. Mills, 288 Minn. 16
Toetschinger v. Ihnot 250 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 1977
Kowalske v. Armour and Company 220 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 1974
Kowalske v. Armour and Company 220 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 1974
Mathews v. Mills, 288 Minn. 16 , Doyle v. St.
Northern Petrochemical Co. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc. 211 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1973
Northern Petrochemical Co. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc. 211 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1973
The apportionment of damages where two or more persons approximately simultaneously cause harm to another through independent acts of negligence is discussed in Mathews v. Mills, 288 Minn. 16