Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Jones v. Fisher, 309 N.W.2d 726.
- Kimberly L. Meyer, William Buskey v. American Legion Post 270, d/b/a Buffalo American Legion or Buffalo American Legion … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
Kimberly L. Meyer, William Buskey v. American Legion Post 270, d/b/a Buffalo American Legion or Buffalo American Legion …
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Britamco Underwriters, Inc. v. A & A Liquors of St.
- 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
- Brua v. MINNESOTA JOINT UNDERWRITING ASS'N 778 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2010
-
Brua v. MINNESOTA JOINT UNDERWRITING ASS'N
778 N.W.2d 294
Minn. 2010
Gravley v. Sea Gull Marine, Inc., see also 4 Minn. Dist.
- Britamco Underwriters, Inc. v. a & a Liquors of St. Cloud 649 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-
Britamco Underwriters, Inc. v. a & a Liquors of St. Cloud
649 N.W.2d 867
Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(recognizing that “[djamages under the dram shop act, in case of death, are limited to loss of ‘means of support’ to decedent’s dependents”).
- Nuessmeier Electric, Inc. v. Weiss Manufacturing Co. 632 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
- Nuessmeier Electric, Inc. v. Weiss Manufacturing Co. 632 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
- VanWagner v. Mattison 533 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
-
VanWagner v. Mattison
533 N.W.2d 75
Minn. Ct. App. 1995
The Mattisons’ position is supported by the supreme court’s
- Kryzer v. Champlin American Legion No. 600 481 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
-
Kryzer v. Champlin American Legion No. 600
481 N.W.2d 98
Minn. Ct. App. 1992
a negligent motorist struck and killed an intoxicated pedestrian who had been served alcohol at several bars.
- Computer Tool & Engineering, Inc. v. Northern States Power Co. 453 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
-
Computer Tool & Engineering, Inc. v. Northern States Power Co.
453 N.W.2d 569
Minn. Ct. App. 1990
see generally Note, Contribution and Indemnity — An Examination of the Upheaval in Minnesota Tort Loss Allocation Concepts, 5 Wm.
- Paulson v. Lapa, Inc. 450 N.W.2d 374 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
-
Paulson v. Lapa, Inc.
450 N.W.2d 374
Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Hannah v. Chmielewski, Inc., 323 *
- Ferguson v. Orr 427 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- Ferguson v. Orr 427 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- Nelson v. Larsen 405 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-
Nelson v. Larsen
405 N.W.2d 455
Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Spitzack, 308 Minn, at 145-46, d at 643 ; -30 (Minn.1981).
- Erickson v. Hinckley Municipal Liquor Store 373 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- Erickson v. Hinckley Municipal Liquor Store 373 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- Hosley v. Armstrong Cork Co. 364 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Hosley v. Armstrong Cork Co.
364 N.W.2d 813
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(quoting from Note, Contribution & Indemnity-An Ex amination of the Upheaval in Minnesota Tort Loss Allocation Concepts, 5 Wm.
- Bekis v. Schilling 357 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- Bekis v. Schilling 357 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- McGuire v. C & L RESTAURANT INC. 346 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 1984
-
McGuire v. C & L RESTAURANT INC.
346 N.W.2d 605
Minn. 1984
we held a spouse of one who becomes intoxicated by drinking 3.2 beer has a common law negligence action against the vendor, thus placing liability of 3.2 beer vendors on the same footing as vendors covered by the Civil Damage Act.
- Horton Ex Rel. Horton v. Orbeth, Inc. 342 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 1984
- Horton Ex Rel. Horton v. Orbeth, Inc. 342 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 1984
- Johnson v. Moberg 334 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 1983
-
Johnson v. Moberg
334 N.W.2d 411
Minn. 1983
this court made it clear that it was a violation of the equal protection clause of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions to treat vendors of 3.2 beer as a different class than vendors of intoxicating liquor.
- Hannah v. Chmielewski, Inc. 323 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1982
- Hannah v. Chmielewski, Inc. 323 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1982
- Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. Clayton Club, Inc. 316 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 1982
-
Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. Clayton Club, Inc.
316 N.W.2d 531
Minn. 1982
The district court dismissed the plaintiff’s which authorizes the maintenance of the instant action.