Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 188 N.W.2d 426.

40 citing documents.

Patricia A. Jones, as Trustee for the Next of Kin of Kaitlyn M. Jones (deceased) and Personal Representative … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co. , 290 Minn. 321, 328-29, (relying on the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965) to outline the elements of a Minne sota claim for a manufacturing defect).
Schafer v. JLC Food Systems, Inc. 695 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 2005
Schafer v. JLC Food Systems, Inc. 695 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 2005
For example, in a case involving an exploding soft drink bottle, we observed that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to take the case to the jury even though the plaintiff was not able to establish a specific defect in the bottle, Holkestad v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 288 Minn. 249, 257 , -66 (1970); see also Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 290 Minn. 321, 330-31 , (holding that circumstantial evidence supported the inference of defect when the soft drink bottle exploded in the plaint
Trigger's Supper Club v. Sunridge Farms, Inc. 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Shigellosis Litigation 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Trigger's Supper Club v. Sunridge Farms, Inc. 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See McCormack, 278 Minn. at 338 , d at 500 ; Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 290 Minn. 321, 327-28 , -32 (1971).
In Re Shigellosis Litigation 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See McCormack, 278 Minn. at 338 , d at 500 ; Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 290 Minn. 321, 327-28 , -32 (1971).
Patton v. Newmar Corp. 538 N.W.2d 116 Minn. 1995
Patton v. Newmar Corp. 538 N.W.2d 116 Minn. 1995
Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc., , 623 n. 3 (Minn.1984); Hudson v. Snyder Body, Inc., 326 * Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 290 Minn. 321, 329
Kneibel v. RRM ENTERPRISES 506 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Kneibel v. RRM ENTERPRISES 506 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See, e.g., Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 290 Minn. 321, 322 , (even absent evidence of mishandling, explosion of bottle may be circumstantial evidence product was defective when it left the defendant’s control).
Western Surety & Casualty Co. v. General Electric Co. 433 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Western Surety & Casualty Co. v. General Electric Co. 433 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 290 Minn. 321 , Holkestad v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 288 Minn. 249 , Mattson v. Rochester Silo, Inc., pet.
Jonathan v. Kvaal 403 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kallio v. Ford Motor Co. 391 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kallio v. Ford Motor Co. 391 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
d at 623 n. 3 (citing Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 290 Minn. 321, 329 , ).
McCormick v. Custom Pools, Inc. 376 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
McCormick v. Custom Pools, Inc. 376 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Bilotta, d at 623 n. 3 (citing Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 290 Minn. 321, 329 , ).
Yates v. Hanna Min. Co., Inc. 365 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Yates v. Hanna Min. Co., Inc. 365 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 290 Minn. 321
Continental Insurance Co. v. Loctite Corp. 352 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Continental Insurance Co. v. Loctite Corp. 352 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 290 Minn. 321, 334-35 , Farr v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 288 Minn. 83, 93
Mahowald v. Minnesota Gas Co. 344 N.W.2d 856 Minn. 1984
Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc. 346 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1984
Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc. 346 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1984
Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 290 Minn. 321, 329
Mahowald v. Minnesota Gas Co. 344 N.W.2d 856 Minn. 1984
Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 290 Minn. 321 , Holkestad v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 288 Minn. 249
Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc. 324 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 1982
Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc. 324 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 1982
See also Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 290 Minn. 321 , Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A comment c (1965).
City of Minnetonka v. Carlson 265 N.W.2d 205 Minn. 1978
City of Minnetonka v. Carlson 265 N.W.2d 205 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
Compare the majority and concurring opinions in Magnuson v. Rupp Manufacturing, Inc., 285 Minn. 32 , and Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 290 Minn. 321
O'LAUGHLIN v. Minnesota Natural Gas Co. 253 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 1977
O'LAUGHLIN v. Minnesota Natural Gas Co. 253 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 1977
Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 290 Minn. 321, 329 , Farr v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 288 Minn. 83 , Magnuson v. Rupp Manufacturing, Inc., 285 Minn. 32, 46 , (Rogosheske, J., concurring specially).
Goblirsch v. Western Land Roller Co. 246 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1976
Goblirsch v. Western Land Roller Co. 246 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1976
In Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 290 Minn. 321 , we held that the plaintiff, who had been injured by an exploding pop bottle, was entitled to a new trial.
Cerepak v. Revlon, Inc. 200 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 1972
Cerepak v. Revlon, Inc. 200 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 1972
Al *271 though the burden of proof has been less strict in cases of spontaneous explosion of carbonated beverage bottles, Holkestad v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 288 Minn. 249 , and Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 290 Minn. 321 , than in the case of other glass containers, Kerr v. Corning Glass Works, 284 Minn. 115 , no case based on negligence has wholly removed this burden of proof or held it discharged merely by proof that the plaintiff had not mishandled the product.
Froysland v. Leef Bros., Inc. 197 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1972
Froysland v. Leef Bros., Inc. 197 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1972
See, Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 290 Minn. 321 , Thibault v. Bostrom, 270 Minn. 511