Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cracraft v. City of St. Louis Park, 279 N.W.2d 801.

90 citing documents.

Josh Campion, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Kaylen Stiever v. Lake County Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Kaylen Stiever v. Lake County Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Louis Park, d 801, 805 (Minn. 1979).
Stacey Marable, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Louis Park, , 805 (Minn. 1979) (determining that a municipality has a public duty to conduct fire inspections).
Fenrich v. Blake Sch. 920 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2018
Grace Louise Hollingsworth v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Grace Louise Hollingsworth v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Louis Park, (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315 (1965)).
Doug Blaine v. City of Sartell, County of Stearns 865 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Doug Blaine v. City of Sartell, County of Stearns 865 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Louis Park, a case on which the county also relies heavily.
James Ariola as next of kin and trustee for Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son v. The City of … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
James Ariola as next of kin and trustee for Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son v. The City of … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Louis Park, (explaining that “the distinction between public duty and special duty is not a doctrine unique to governmental torts”).
Ironwood Springs Christian Ranch, Inc. v. Emmaus 801 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Ironwood Springs Christian Ranch, Inc. v. Emmaus 801 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Louis Park, -07 (Minn.1979)
Bjerke v. Johnson 742 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2007
Becker v. Mayo Foundation 737 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 2007
Larson v. Wasemiller 738 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2007
Becker v. Mayo Foundation 737 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 2007
Louis Park, to determine whether a statute creates a special duty between a governmental unit and an individual.
Larson v. Wasemiller 738 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2007
Louis Park, breach of a duty owed to the general public cannot be the basis of liability.
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
Radke v. County of Freeborn 694 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 2005
Radke v. County of Freeborn 694 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 2005
Louis Park, appellant argues that a special relationship existed between the county, its child protection workers, and Makaio because, under the factors established in that case, CARA created a special duty requiring respondents to act with due care in investigating reports of abuse.
Radke v. County of Freeborn 676 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Radke v. County of Freeborn 676 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Louis Park, -07 (Minn.1979).
Sletten v. Ramsey County 675 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2004
Sletten v. Ramsey County 675 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2004
Woehrle v. City of Mankato 647 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Explained Woehrle v. City of Mankato 647 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Louis Park, -04 (Minn.1979) (other citation omitted)).
Funchess v. Cecil Newman Corp. 615 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Funchess v. Cecil Newman Corp. 615 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Louis Park, (finding municipality’s duty of care with regard to fire code violations when municipality assumes to act for the protection of others, as distinguished from acting merely for itself when it inspects property for fire-code violations); see also State by Humphrey v. Philip Morris, Inc.
Bigos v. Kluender 611 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Bigos v. Kluender 611 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Nickelson v. Mall of America Co. 593 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Nickelson v. Mall of America Co. 593 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Johnson v. State 553 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1996
Johnson v. State 553 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1996
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc. 551 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1996
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc. 551 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1996
Louis Park, (citing Islet, supra); see W. Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, § 56, at 378 (5th ed. 1984).
Hoppe Ex Rel. Dykema v. Kandiyohi County 543 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1996
Hoppe Ex Rel. Dykema v. Kandiyohi County 543 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1996
McNamara v. McLean 531 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
McNamara v. McLean 531 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Louis Park, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that governmental functions performed on behalf of the general public are immune from attack by a negligence action, but that suit may be brought where a private duty is created.
Flour Exchange Building Corp. v. State 524 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Flour Exchange Building Corp. v. State 524 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Williams v. Harris 518 N.W.2d 864 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Williams v. Harris 518 N.W.2d 864 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Louis Park, (distinguishing public duty from special duty and limiting actions against city to special duty).
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
Doe 1-22 v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Fall River 509 N.W.2d 598 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Doe 1-22 v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Fall River 509 N.W.2d 598 Minn. Ct. App. 1993