Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Anderson Ex Rel. Anderson v. Stream, 295 N.W.2d 595.

29 citing documents.

Nanette Brooks, parents and natural guardians of minor A.B. v. Tracy Crudo individually, and as ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Nanette Brooks, parents and natural guardians of minor A.B. v. Tracy Crudo individually, and as ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
3 Crudo focuses her assertions of deficiency on a “reasonability” as establishing the applicable standard of care.
Bentley S. Poitra, et al., Minn. 2021
6 resident-relative exclusion in a homeowner’s insurance policy in Ryan, we emphasized that, abolishing parent-child immunity was decided after Ryan’s injury, the parties could not avail themselves of the holding in that case.
Cruz-Guzman v. State 916 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
Cruz-Guzman v. State 916 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
" (alteration in original) (quoting Anderson v. Stream , , 600 (Minn. 1980) ) ); cf. Associated Schs.
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
The right to a remedy for wrongs is “[a] fundamental concept of our legal system and a right guaranteed by our state constitution.”
In Re Individual 35w Bridge Litigation 786 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re Individual 35w Bridge Litigation 786 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The supreme court has abolished inter-spousal tort immunity, Beaudette v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366, 373 , and the immunity of a parent from suit by an unemancipated child
Lickteig v. Kolar 782 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 2010
Lickteig v. Kolar 782 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 2010
See, (abrogating parental immunity); Beaudette v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366, 373 , (abrogating interspousal immunity); Balts v. Balts, 273 Minn. 419, 430, 433 , 75 (1966) (rejecting immunity for a child in a suit brought by a parent, concluding that “public policy .
Larson v. Wasemiller 718 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Larson v. Wasemiller 718 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
nc., (stating that the supreme court “has the power to recognize and abolish common law doctrines.”); Silesky v. Kelman, 281 Minn. 431, 433 , (stating “[t]he court may modify the common law, adopting such of its principles as are applicable and rejecting such others as are inapplicable.”) ().
Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 582 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1998
Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 582 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1998
(abolishing parental immunity); Nieting v. Blondell, 306 Minn. 122 , (abolishing state tort immunity).
Eiynk v. Sabrowsky 524 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Eiynk v. Sabrowsky 524 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Manderfeld 482 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Manderfeld 482 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
the supreme court abolished the doctrine of parental immunity, which had proscribed lawsuits by children against their parents for personal torts.
Larson v. Dunn 460 N.W.2d 39 Minn. 1990
Cook v. Connolly 353 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Wills v. K-Mart Corp. 354 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 1984
Wills v. K-Mart Corp. 354 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 1984
More recently, we concluded the Silesky test for parental immunity was both too uncertain and arbitrary in application to justify its continued existence, and prospectively abandoned it in favor of the more flexible “reasonable parent” standard of liability.
Pautz v. Cal-Ros, Inc. 340 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 1983
Pautz v. Cal-Ros, Inc. 340 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 1983
Inasmuch as interspousal immunity and parent-child immunity, once an absolute defense to tort liability, have been abolished in Minnesota, Beaudette v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366 , Silesky v. Kelman, 281 Minn. 431 , it is apparent that if the appellant vendor is liable to these plaintiffs, so also is the respondent husband/father whom the plaintiffs allege was intoxicated.
American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ryan 330 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 1983
American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ryan 330 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 1983
In so holding, Judge Kennedy specifically found that a recent decision abolishing parental immunity, (decided about 1 month after *115 the date of Tamala’s injury) was not retroactive.
Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe v. Blake 311 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1981
Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe v. Blake 311 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1981
Contribution is an equitable doctrine which “requires that those who contribute to an injury bear liability in direct proportion to their relative culpability.”