Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc., 199 N.W.2d 158.

35 citing documents.

Sletten v. Ramsey County 675 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2004
Sletten v. Ramsey County 675 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2004
In Cracraft , we cited to Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc., 293 Minn. 220 , which recognized that the Minnesota legislature had abolished the doctrine of sovereign immunity as it applied to political subdivisions of the state and held that “these statutory provisions [abolishing immunity] merely removed the defense of immunity * * * and did not create any new liabilit
Advantage Capital Management v. City of Northfield 664 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Advantage Capital Management v. City of Northfield 664 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
“Budding codes, the issuance of budding permits, and budding inspections are devices used by municipalities to make sure that construction within the corporate limits of the municipality meets the standards established.” Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc., 293 Minn. 220, 223
Vrieze v. New Century Homes, Inc. 542 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Distinguished Vrieze v. New Century Homes, Inc. 542 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
w has not explicitly described the public policy that would be jeopardized if municipalities could be liable for issuing building permits, the supreme court has stated elsewhere that building permits “are not meant to be an insurance policy by which the municipality guarantees that each building is built in compliance with the building codes and zoning codes.” Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, 293 Minn. 220, 223 , (discussing city’s duty to use due care in issuing permits).
McNamara v. McLean 531 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
McNamara v. McLean 531 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, 293 Minn. 220, 223 , (holding that building permits and inspections “are not meant to be an insurance policy by which the municipality guarantees that each building is built in compliance with the building codes and zoning codes”); Masonick, d at 913 (same).
Danielson v. City of Brooklyn Park 516 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Danielson v. City of Brooklyn Park 516 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc., 293 Minn. 220, 222 , the supreme court determined that recovery against a municipality could be obtained only upon showing a breach of some duty owed to the litigants in their individual capacities and not merely a breach of some obligation owed to the general public.
Masonick v. J.P. Homes, Inc. 494 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Masonick v. J.P. Homes, Inc. 494 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc., 293 Minn. 220, 223
Bruegger v. Faribault County Sheriff's Department 486 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Bruegger v. Faribault County Sheriff's Department 486 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Cf. Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc., 293 Minn. 220, 222-23 , (fire code meant to protect public generally; violation of code could not form basis of negligence action).
Dahlheimer v. City of Dayton 441 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Dahlheimer v. City of Dayton 441 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Louis Park, -04 (Minn.1979) (quoting Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc., 293 Minn. 220, 222 , -60 (1972)).
Frank's Livestock & Poultry Farm, Inc. v. City of Wells 431 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Frank's Livestock & Poultry Farm, Inc. v. City of Wells 431 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See, Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc., 293 Minn. 220
Seaton v. County of Scott 404 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Seaton v. County of Scott 404 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc., 293 Minn. 220, 222 , -60 (1972).
Gilbert v. Billman Construction, Inc. 371 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1985
Gilbert v. Billman Construction, Inc. 371 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1985
Louis Park, and Hof *546 fert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc., 293 Minn. 220 , where we held that a governmental entity generally owes no duty of care to any individual merely by the fact that it enacts a general ordinance requiring code inspections, or by the fact that it undertakes an inspection for code violations.
Hage v. Stade 304 N.W.2d 283 Minn. 1981
Hage v. Stade 304 N.W.2d 283 Minn. 1981
Similarly, in Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc., 293 Minn. 220 , we held that a building code ordinance did not create a special duty owed to the plaintiffs and stated: Building codes, thé issuance of building permits, and building inspections are devices used by municipalities to make sure *287 that construction within the corporate limits of the municipal
Perkins v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. 289 N.W.2d 462 Minn. 1979
Perkins v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. 289 N.W.2d 462 Minn. 1979
On that issue, this case is controlled by our decision in Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc., 293 Minn. 220
Cracraft v. City of St. Louis Park 279 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1979
Cracraft v. City of St. Louis Park 279 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1979
In 1972, this court decided Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc., 293 Minn. 220
Lorshbough v. Township of Buzzle 258 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 1977
Lorshbough v. Township of Buzzle 258 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 1977
Defendants look to Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc., 293 Minn. 220 , for the law generally applicable to this situation.
Besserman v. Town of Paradise Valley, Inc. 569 P.2d 1369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Barnum v. Rural Fire Protection Company 537 P.2d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Hansen v. City of Saint Paul 214 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 1974
Hansen v. City of Saint Paul 214 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 1974
2 Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc. 293 Minn. 220 , is in accord.
Duran v. City of Tucson 509 P.2d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973