Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lorshbough v. Township of Buzzle, 258 N.W.2d 96.

28 citing documents.

Kaylen Stiever v. Lake County Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Kaylen Stiever v. Lake County Minn. Ct. App. 2026
nts also argue that dismissal was inappropriate because if “there is a separate statute or rule (such as [the county’s] special ordinance requiring CUP termination where the use is not in conformity with the CUP’s conditions) a trial on the merits could find that the County owed an individual duty of care to property owners who are harmed.”
Anderson v. State, Department of Natural Resources 693 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 2005
Anderson v. State, Department of Natural Resources 693 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 2005
Schroeder v. White 624 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Schroeder v. White 624 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See, (common law exception); (because the primary and predominant objective of the FHA appraisal system is the protection of the government and its insurance funds, a home buyer cannot recover damages for negligent appraisal from the federal government or
Haage v. Steies 555 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Haage v. Steies 555 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Bruegger, d at 262 ; 102 (Minn.1977) (inspection statute did not create a new right of action, but described standard of care for common law negligence claim).
Anderson v. Minnesota Insurance Guaranty Ass'n 520 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Anderson v. Minnesota Insurance Guaranty Ass'n 520 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(where underlying cause of action exists, statute may establish a standard of care in a negligence action); Bruegger, d at 262 (stating that a statute can establish a standard of care).
Valtakis v. Putnam 504 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Valtakis v. Putnam 504 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(“An Unexcused violation of a statute that establishes a standard of care is negligence, and liability is the consequence if proximate causation is proved.”).
Bruegger v. Faribault County Sheriff's Department 497 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1993
Bruegger v. Faribault County Sheriff's Department 497 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1993
Appellants argue that “[a]n unexcused violation of a statute that establishes a standard of care is negligence, and liability is the consequence if proximate causation is proved,”
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
the violation of a statute which imposes a duty of care is negligence if proximate causation is shown.
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
Wesala v. City of Virginia 390 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Wesala v. City of Virginia 390 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Nor are we concerned with the duty of a
Andrade v. Ellefson 375 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Andrade v. Ellefson 375 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Gilbert v. Billman Construction, Inc. 371 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1985
Gilbert v. Billman Construction, Inc. 371 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1985
we acknowledged the principle that: [A] governmental unit owes a particular individual a duty of care when its officer or agent, in a position and with authority to act, has or should have had knowledge of a condition that violates safety standards prescribed by statute or regulation, and that presen
Hage v. Stade 304 N.W.2d 283 Minn. 1981
Hage v. Stade 304 N.W.2d 283 Minn. 1981
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
1 Nor are we concerned with the duty of a