Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hime v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 284 N.W.2d 829.

37 citing documents.

Bentley S. Poitra, et al., Minn. 2021
t-relative exclusions in Hime v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., citing language in 5 our opinion that “the courts and legislature of this state have condemned household immunity clauses” and that the social gain of providing financial protection to injured family members “transcends the arguable social loss of impairing insurance contract provisions that provide for familial exclusions.” –34 (Minn. 1979).
Kolberg-Pioneer, Inc. v. Belgrade Steel Tank Co. 823 N.W.2d 669 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Kolberg-Pioneer, Inc. v. Belgrade Steel Tank Co. 823 N.W.2d 669 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Co., (stating that a case with “traits of both torts and contract[ ] requires consideration of all five factors”).
Jacobson v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Group 645 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Jacobson v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Group 645 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Nodak Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 604 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2000
Nodak Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 604 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2000
Nodak Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 590 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Nodak Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 590 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Co., (stating that, because first four factors weighed in favor of applying Minnesota law, court did not “dwell on” better-law factor)'.
Richie v. Paramount Pictures Corp. 532 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Richie v. Paramount Pictures Corp. 532 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
It “applies primarily to consensual transactions where the parties desire advance notice of which state law will govern in future disputes.” Hime v. State Farm Fire & Casualty, cert.
Jepson v. General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin 513 N.W.2d 467 Minn. 1994
Jepson v. General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin 513 N.W.2d 467 Minn. 1994
Hime v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Hague
BD. OF REGENTS OF U. OF M. v. Royal Ins. 503 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
BD. OF REGENTS OF U. OF M. v. Royal Ins. 503 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Board of Regents of University of Minnesota v. Royal Insurance Co. of America 503 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Board of Regents of University of Minnesota v. Royal Insurance Co. of America 503 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Gimmestad v. Gimmestad 451 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Gimmestad v. Gimmestad 451 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Hime v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., cert, denied, 444 U.S. 1032 , 100 S.Ct.
Presnell v. Allstate Insurance Co. 434 N.W.2d 267 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Presnell v. Allstate Insurance Co. 434 N.W.2d 267 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See Hime v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., cert.
Wille v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. 432 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Wille v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. 432 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Similar contacts were held sufficient in Hime v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., cert.
Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Clementson 431 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Clementson 431 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Hime v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
Lindquist v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 415 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lindquist v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 415 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hime v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., -33 (Minn.1979), cert.
Stenzel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 379 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Stenzel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 379 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hoeschen v. South Carolina Insurance Co. 378 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 1985
Hoeschen v. South Carolina Insurance Co. 378 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 1985
Both the trial court and court of appeals concluded that the coverage question required a choice of law analysis in accordance with Hime v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., cert.
Western National Mutual Insurance Co. v. State Farm Insurance 353 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Western National Mutual Insurance Co. v. State Farm Insurance 353 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Application of Minnesota law depends on whether these contacts are “sufficient” or “too slight and casual.”
Hoeschen v. South Carolina Insurance Co. 349 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Hoeschen v. South Carolina Insurance Co. 349 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Milbank Mutual Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 332 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 1983
Milbank Mutual Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 332 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 1983
Hime v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., -33 (Minn.1979), cert.