Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Mjos Ex Rel. Mjos v. Village of Howard Lake, 178 N.W.2d 862.

26 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Armando DeLaCruz, Jr. 884 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Armando DeLaCruz, Jr. 884 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
of Howard Lake, 287 Minn. 427, 435 n.6, n.6 (1970) (stating that “to allow a party to make a second motion .
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
of Howard Lake, 287 Minn. 427, 436-37 , (stating that the fact that the jury asked for further instructions relating to an allegedly erroneous instruction was “perhaps decisive of the question” of prejudice).
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 788 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 788 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
of Howard Lake, 287 Minn. 427
Granville v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 732 N.W.2d 201 Minn. 2007
Granville v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 732 N.W.2d 201 Minn. 2007
24, 1967, ch. 19, § 10, 1967 Minn. Laws 54 , 71-76, as recognized by Mjos v. Village of Howard Lake, 287 Minn. 427, 431-32 , or becomes effective without the exception, see Pepin Tivp.
Englund v. MN CA Partners/MN Joint Ventures 555 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Englund v. MN CA Partners/MN Joint Ventures 555 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
[B]y placing the burden of economic loss on the vendors, the Act “provides an extremely effective incentive for liquor vendors to do everything in their power to avoid making illegal sales.” Hollerich, d at 668 (quoting Skaja v. Andrews Hotel, 281 Minn. 417, 423 , ); accord Mjos v. Village of Howard Lake, 287 Minn. 427, 435 , (requiring the vendor take affirmative steps to ensure sale is legal).
Hollerich v. City of Good Thunder 340 N.W.2d 665 Minn. 1983
Hollerich v. City of Good Thunder 340 N.W.2d 665 Minn. 1983
Mjos v. Village of Howard Lake, 287 Minn. 427
Wolner v. Mahaska Industries, Inc. 325 N.W.2d 39 Minn. 1982
Wolner v. Mahaska Industries, Inc. 325 N.W.2d 39 Minn. 1982
Mjos v. Village of Howard Lake, 287 Minn. 427 , presented a situation in which neither the parties nor the court was aware of a new statutory amendment existing at the time of trial.
Seeley Ex Rel. Seeley v. Sobczak 281 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1979
Seeley Ex Rel. Seeley v. Sobczak 281 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1979
See, Mjos v. Village of Howard Lake, 287 Minn. 427
Jaros v. Warroad Municipal Liquor Store 227 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 1975
Jaros v. Warroad Municipal Liquor Store 227 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 1975
This court has held in the case of Mjos v. Village of Howard Lake, 287 Minn. 427 , that the standard or duty of observation required of a liquor supplier to detect intoxication in prospective customers is as follows: “* * * However, the change of the statutory standard for prohibition of further sales of intoxicating liquor does require that the seller take such affirmativ
Erickson v. Sorenson 211 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 1973
Erickson v. Sorenson 211 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 1973
Third-party defendant Sorenson maintains that the decision in Mjos v. Village of Howard Lake, 287 Minn. 427 , is controlling.
Martinson v. Monticello Municipal Liquors 209 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1973
Martinson v. Monticello Municipal Liquors 209 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1973
Mjos v. Village of Howard Lake, 287 Minn. 427 , in interpreting § 340.73, subd.
Cameron v. City of Fridley 197 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1972
Cameron v. City of Fridley 197 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1972
Plaintiffs accordingly requested an instruction to the effect that the seller of intoxicating liquor is under a duty to take affirmative steps to see that “which would be observable to a reasonably prudent man making an affirmative effort of observation.” Mjos v. Village of Howard Lake, 287 Minn. 427, 433 , Kluger v. Gallett, 288 Minn. 11
Kluger v. Gallett 178 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 1970
Kluger v. Gallett 178 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 1970
340.95 has been resolved by our decision in Mjos v. Village of Howard Lake, 287 Minn. 427 , 178 N. W. (2d) 862 .