Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Becker v. Mayo Foundation, 737 N.W.2d 200.

82 citing documents.

Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund "A", Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. CVS Caremark Corporation, Appellants/Cross-Respondents, Coborn's Incorporated, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, … 850 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 2014
Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund "A", Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. CVS Caremark Corporation, Appellants/Cross-Respondents, Coborn's Incorporated, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, … 850 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 2014
Dukowitz v. Hannon Security Services 841 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 2014
Dukowitz v. Hannon Security Services 841 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 2014
(observing that “ ‘where a statute expressly provides a particular remedy or remedies, a court must be chary of reading others into it’ ” (quoting Transamerica Mort.
In re the Civil Commitment of Moen 837 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re the Civil Commitment of Moen 837 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 834 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 834 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
A party is entitled to a new trial only if the district court erred in its evidentiary ruling and, in addition, if the error “had a reasonable likelihood of affecting the jury’s verdict.”
Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund "A" v. CVS Caremark Corp. 833 N.W.2d 403 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund "A" v. CVS Caremark Corp. 833 N.W.2d 403 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“A statute does not give rise to a civil cause of action unless the language of the statute is explicit or it can be determined by clear implication.” Flour Exch.
Marriage of Zaldivar v. Rodriguez 819 N.W.2d 187 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Marriage of Zaldivar v. Rodriguez 819 N.W.2d 187 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Dukowitz v. Hannon Security Services 815 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Dukowitz v. Hannon Security Services 815 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“A statute does not give rise to a civil cause of action unless the language of the statute is explicit or it can be determined by clear implication.”
Hasledalen v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 811 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Hasledalen v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 811 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“It is an elemental canon of statutory construction that where a statute expressly provides a particular remedy or remedies, a court must be chary of reading others into it.” (quotation omitted).
Lickteig v. Kolar 782 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 2010
Lickteig v. Kolar 782 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 2010
Generally, “[a] statute does not give rise to a civil cause of action unless the language of the statute is explicit or it can be determined by clear implication.” ( , 47 n. 4 (Minn.1990)); see also Bruegger v. Faribault County Sheriff’s Dep’t, (concluding that principles of judicial restraint preclude judicial creation of additional causes of action outside those evident in a statute’s express
Rooney v. Rooney 782 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Rooney v. Rooney 782 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Krueger v. Zeman Construction Co. 781 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 2010
Krueger v. Zeman Construction Co. 781 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 2010
(“A statute does not give rise to a civil cause of action unless the language of the statute is explicit or it can be determined by clear implication.” (citing Larson v. Dunn, 460'N.W.2d 39, 47 n. 4 (Minn.1990))); see also Bruegger v. Faribault County Sheriff’s Dep’t, (
Hennepin County v. Hill 777 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Hennepin County v. Hill 777 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re the Welfare of the Child of S.L.J. 772 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Welfare of the Child of S.L.J. 772 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In re Welfare of Child of T.T.B.
Losen v. Allina Health System 767 N.W.2d 703 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Losen v. Allina Health System 767 N.W.2d 703 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Appellants assert that Bruegger v. Faribault County Sheriffs Dep’t, support their argument.
City of Jordan v. Church of St. John the Baptist of Jordan 764 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
City of Jordan v. Church of St. John the Baptist of Jordan 764 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(statutory construction); In re Welfare of Child of: T.T.B.
Bjerke v. Johnson 742 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2007
Bjerke v. Johnson 742 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2007
(finding no special relationship between hospital and child because hospital “did not exercise control over [the child’s] daily welfare”); Harper, d at 474 n. 2 (noting that a typical circumstance in which a duty exists is when the defendant holds “considerable power over the plaintiffs welfa