DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Munoz v. Applebaum's Food Market, Inc., 196 N.W.2d 921.

26 citing documents.

  • Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
  • Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
    Munoz v. Applebaum’s Food Mkt., Inc., 293 Minn. 433
  • Foss v. Kincade 746 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Foss v. Kincade 746 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    See Munoz v. Applebaum’s Food Market, Inc., 293 Minn. 433, 434 , (concluding that landowners owe no duty with respect to obvious dangers).
  • Taney v. Independent School District No. 624 673 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • Taney v. Independent School District No. 624 673 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    Appellant argues that the Minnesota Supreme Court set forth the test for an "obvious” condition in Munoz v. Applebaum’s Food Market, Inc., 293 Minn. 433, 434
  • Louis v. Louis 636 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2001
  • Louis v. Louis 636 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2001
    Munoz v. Applebaum’s Food Market, Inc., 293 Minn. 433, 434
  • Rinn v. Minnesota State Agricultural Society 611 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Rinn v. Minnesota State Agricultural Society 611 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    Munoz v. Applebaum’s Food Market, Inc., 293 Minn. 433, 434
  • Baber v. Dill 531 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1995
  • Baber v. Dill 531 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1995
    Co., -34 (Minn.1983) (holding no duty to warn patrons about a large planter because it presented an obvious danger); Hammerlind v. Clear Lake Star Factory Skydiver’s Club, -594 (Minn.1977) (holding a lake was an obvious danger to parachutists); Munoz v. Applebaum’s Food Market, Inc., 293 Minn. 433, 434 , -22 (1972) (holding store owner had no duty to warn of dangers associated with a pool of water that was 20 feet square and one-quarter inch deep because “[t]he dimensions of the pool were such t
  • Martinez v. Minnesota Zoological Gardens 526 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • Martinez v. Minnesota Zoological Gardens 526 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    “The test is not whether the injured party *419 actually saw the danger, but whether it was in fact visible.” Munoz v. Applebaum’s Food Mkt., Inc., 293 Minn. 433, 434
  • Steinke v. City of Andover 525 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 1994
  • Steinke v. City of Andover 525 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 1994
    See Munoz v. Applebaum’s Food Mkt., Inc., 293 Minn. 433, 434
  • Johnson v. State 478 N.W.2d 769 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • Johnson v. State 478 N.W.2d 769 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    The “test is not whether the injured party saw the danger, but whether it was in fact visible.” Munoz v. Applebaum’s Food Market, Inc., 293 Minn. 433, 434 , (test for higher, invitee level of duty).
  • Lawrence v. Hollerich 394 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Lawrence v. Hollerich 394 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Munoz v. Applebaum’s Food Market, Inc., 293 Minn. 433, 434
  • Olson v. City of St. James 380 N.W.2d 555 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Olson v. City of St. James 380 N.W.2d 555 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Joseph the Worker, 295 Minn. 406, 409-10 , Munoz v. Applebaum’s Food Market, Inc., 293 Minn. 433, 434
  • Peterson v. Haule 230 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1975
  • Peterson v. Haule 230 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1975
    *167 With respect to the first issue, defendants place principal reliance on three cases: Dukek v. Farwell, Ozmun, Kirk & Co. 248 Minn. 374 , Munoz v. Applebaum’s Food Market, Inc. 293 Minn. 433 , and Stapleman v. St.
  • Stapleman v. St. Joseph the Worker 205 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 1973
  • Stapleman v. St. Joseph the Worker 205 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 1973
    In a recent decision of this court, Munoz v. Applebaum’s Food Market, Inc. 293 Minn. 433 , the plaintiff slipped on a pool of water in defendant’s store which was plainly in view although she testified she did not see it.