DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Seim Ex Rel. Seim v. Garavalia, 306 N.W.2d 806.

63 citing documents.

  • Boitz v. Preblich 405 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    (There are “compelling reasons to conclude that section 347.22 was meant to provide absolute statutory strict liability.”) Appellants contend the trial court’s conclusion the statute pertains only to vicious or dangerous attacks by dogs would render the “or injures” language of the statute meaningless.
  • Flanagan v. Lindberg 404 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 1987
  • Flanagan v. Lindberg 404 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 1987
    The test to be applied by an appellate court is whether the jury award of damages is “so inadequate or excessive that * * * it could only have been rendered on account of passion or prejudice.” (citing Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 154 , ).
  • Petersen v. Kidd 400 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Petersen v. Kidd 400 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Thelen Ex Rel. Thelen v. St. Cloud Hospital 379 N.W.2d 189 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Thelen Ex Rel. Thelen v. St. Cloud Hospital 379 N.W.2d 189 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    The trial court granted her motion, ruling that the statute imposes absolute liability because it was intended “for the protection of a limited class of persons from their inability to protect themselves” ().
  • Hanson v. Roe 373 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Hanson v. Roe 373 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Sievert v. LaMarca 367 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Sievert v. LaMarca 367 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Bailey Ex Rel. Bailey v. Morris 323 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1982
  • Bailey Ex Rel. Bailey v. Morris 323 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1982
    for the proposition that in an action brought under a statute which imposes strict liability for specific injurious conduct the defense of comparative negligence is not available.