Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Schumann v. McGinn, 240 N.W.2d 525.

32 citing documents.

Emily Pedersen, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
.”); Lake v. Wal -Mart Stores, Inc., (acknowledging the supreme court’s “power to recognize and abolish common law 10 doctrines”); (“[W]e retain the common-law authority to define torts and their defenses.”).
Larry Walters, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Pedro Alonzo v. Richard Menholt 9 N.W.3d 148 Minn. 2024
Pedro Alonzo v. Richard Menholt 9 N.W.3d 148 Minn. 2024
We have “the power to recognize and abolish common law doctrines” and “to define common law torts and their defenses.” Id.; see Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Minn. 2021
State v. 25 Ali, –54 (Minn. 2014)
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(recognizing that the Model Penal Code was “promulgated in 1962”); see also Model Penal Code § 212.5 (Am.
Susan Ryan v. napier/klein 425 P.3d 230 Ariz. 2018
MASTER BLASTER, INC. v. Dammann 781 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
MASTER BLASTER, INC. v. Dammann 781 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Pipestone also cites Schumann v. McGinn, 307 Minn. 446 , and Pirrotta v. Indep.
Larson v. Wasemiller 738 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2007
Larson v. Wasemiller 738 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2007
This court has the power to recognize and abolish common law doctrines, Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., as well as to define common law torts and their defenses, Schumann v. McGinn, 307 Minn. 446, 467
Larson v. Wasemiller 718 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Larson v. Wasemiller 718 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Louis Park, (declining to create a new tort that would create a new duty owed by government entities to enforce the law with reasonable care, stating that such a change in the law is one that should be made by the legislature) 3 ; Schumann v. McGinn, 307 Minn. 446, 467 , (quoting Spanel v. Mounds View Sch.
Hyatt v. Anoka Police Department 691 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2005
Hyatt v. Anoka Police Department 691 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2005
Schumann v. McGinn, 307 Minn. 446, 467-68
Johnson v. Morris 453 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 1990
Johnson v. Morris 453 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 1990
Schumann v. McGinn, 307 Minn. 446, 452
Johnson v. Morris 445 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Johnson v. Morris 445 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Id.; see Schumann v. McGinn, 307 Minn. 446, 468-69
Taylor v. Sheehan 435 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Taylor v. Sheehan 435 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See Schumann v. McGinn, 307 Minn. 446, 469
Kaiser v. Northern States Power Co. 353 N.W.2d 899 Minn. 1984
Kaiser v. Northern States Power Co. 353 N.W.2d 899 Minn. 1984
779, 781 (D.C.Canal Zone 1980); Pesce v. Brecher, 302 Mass. 211 , 19 N.E.2d 36 (1939); see also Schumann v. McGinn, 307 Minn. 446, 470-71
Paradise v. City of Minneapolis 297 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1980
Paradise v. City of Minneapolis 297 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1980
See, e. g., Schumann v. McGinn, 307 Minn. 446 , Prosser, Torts, § 9 (4th ed. 1971); JIG II, 501 G. Under Minn.Stat.
Murphy v. City of Minneapolis 292 N.W.2d 751 Minn. 1980
Murphy v. City of Minneapolis 292 N.W.2d 751 Minn. 1980
In support of the proposition that privilege is a defense to a battery claim but not to negligence, the respondents cite Schumann v. McGinn, 307 Minn. 446
Bujanda v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 609 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Cairl v. City of St. Paul 268 N.W.2d 908 Minn. 1978
Schumann Ex Rel. Peterson v. City of St. Paul 268 N.W.2d 903 Minn. 1978
Schumann Ex Rel. Peterson v. City of St. Paul 268 N.W.2d 903 Minn. 1978
It is before us again following the completion of a new trial held pursuant to this court’s decision in Schumann v. McGinn, 307 Minn. 446 , and is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of defendants, City of St.
Cairl v. City of St. Paul 268 N.W.2d 908 Minn. 1978
As this court stated in Schumann v. McGinn, 307 Minn. 446, 467 , : “It is in the legislative forum that * * * the law-enforcement policies of this state may be fully debated and determined.” The legislature has now responded to that case, which involved the use of a weapon by a police officer.