Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Larson v. Wasemiller, 738 N.W.2d 300.

27 citing documents.

Equity Residential Holdings, LLC v. City of Minneapolis Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(certified questions); (constitutional interpretation).
Emily Pedersen, et al v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, Advanced Reproductive Technologies Minn. Ct. App. 2026
d 300, 303 (Minn. 2007) (“It is also the province of the legislature to modify the common law .
Rebecca A. Niebuhr v. Jacob Sieberg, Timothy Sieberg Minn. 2026
Although we have often relied on the Restatements to “ ‘guide our development of … law in areas that we have not previously had an opportunity to address,’ ” d 148, 154 (Minn. 2024) (), we have had the opportunity, in Miller, to address the contours of the principal-agent relationship under the Safety Responsibility Act.
A25-0410 State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Keith Ellison v. American Petroleum Institute (A25-0407) (A25-0408, A25-0410), Exxon … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A25-0410 State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Keith Ellison v. American Petroleum Institute (A25-0407) (A25-0408, A25-0410), Exxon … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Cheryl M. Shega v. American Bank of the North, et al., Laura Craig, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Only the Minnesota Supreme Court has “the power to recognize and abolish common law doctrines and to define common law torts and their defenses.” d 148, 154 (Minn. 2024) (d 300, 303 (Minn. 2007)); see also Federated Mut.
Arianna Anderson, et al v. City of Minneapolis Minn. Ct. App. 2025
18, 1987); (“[The Minnesota Supreme Court] has the power to recognize an d abolish common law doctrines, as well as to define common law torts and their defenses.”) (citations omitted).
David Carl Hepfl v. Jodine Patrice Meadowcroft 9 N.W.3d 567 Minn. 2024
David Carl Hepfl v. Jodine Patrice Meadowcroft 9 N.W.3d 567 Minn. 2024
to guide our development of [the] law in areas that we have not D-7 previously had an opportunity to address.’ ” (d 300, 306 (Minn. 2007))).
Pedro Alonzo v. Richard Menholt 9 N.W.3d 148 Minn. 2024
Pedro Alonzo v. Richard Menholt 9 N.W.3d 148 Minn. 2024
Criticized Sally Cooper Smith v. Steven C. Piechowski, individually and dba SP Trucking, LLC, Northstar Materials, Inc., dba Knife … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The supreme court has pointed out that there is “general acceptance in the common law of the tort of negligent selection of an independent contractor.”
Pedro Alonzo, et al v. Richard Menholt, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Minn. 2021
“This court has the power to recognize and abolish common law doctrines.”
Alla K. Popovich, as wife and Guardian Ad Litem for Aleksandr M. Popovich, et al v. Allina Health … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
where the court of appeals held that ‘a hospital can only be held vicariously liable for a physician’s acts if the physician is an employee of the hospital.’” n. 2 (Minn. 2007).
White Bear Lake Restoration Ass'n ex rel. State v. Minn. Dep't of Natural Res. 928 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
White Bear Lake Restoration Ass'n ex rel. State v. Minn. Dep't of Natural Res. 928 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Larson v. Wasemiller , , 303 (Minn. 2007) (stating that the Minnesota Supreme Court has the power to recognize and abolish common-law doctrines, while it is the province of the legislature to modify the common law); Lake George Park, L.L.C. v. IBM Mid-America Emps.'
Joel Wells v. Rick E. Mattox Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Joel Wells v. Rick E. Mattox Minn. Ct. App. 2016
as well as to define common law torts and their defenses.”
Medical Staff of Avera Marshall Regional Medical Center on its Own behalf and in its Representative Capacity for … 857 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2014
Medical Staff of Avera Marshall Regional Medical Center on its Own behalf and in its Representative Capacity for … 857 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2014
14 It is particularly important for a recognizing that a hospital can be liable for a claim of negligent physician credentialing.
Axelberg v. Commissioner of Public Safety 831 N.W.2d 682 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Axelberg v. Commissioner of Public Safety 831 N.W.2d 682 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
2 But even if a court had determined that, under the common law, the necessity defense applies in a civil implied-consent license-revocation case, it is “the province of the legislature to modify the common law.”
Dahlin v. Kroening 784 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Dahlin v. Kroening 784 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(recognizing that common law continues until modified expressly by statute).
Cargill, Inc. v. Ace American Insurance Co. 784 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2010
Cargill, Inc. v. Ace American Insurance Co. 784 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2010

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by