Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re Disciplinary Action Against Romer, 805 N.W.2d 14.

90 citing documents.

Cindy Moshier v. Roger B. Jarvis Minn. Ct. App. 2019
An instruction is prejudicial when a “more accurate instruction would have changed the outcome of the case.”
Fenrich v. Blake Sch. 920 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2018
Domagala v. Rolland , , 23 (Minn. 2011).
Sonja Jeanne Timmons, individually, and as mother and natural guardian of Jadyn Bentlie Haugen, Kaily Marie Timmons and … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Negligence is generally defined as the failu re to exercise such care as persons of ordinary prudence usually exercise under such circumstances.” (quotation omitted).
A17-2081, A18-0015 John Doe 125 (A17-2078), John Doe 126, et al. (A17-2081), John Doe 123, et al. (A18-0015) … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Christie v. Estate 911 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 2018
Domagala v. Rolland , , 31 (Minn. 2011) (citation omitted).
Larson v. Gannett Co. 915 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Domagala v. Rolland , , 31 (Minn. 2011).
Souhsiung Jack Chiu v. Timbershore Home Owners’ Association and third party plaintiff, vs. New Horizon Homes, Inc., Third … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
To succeed on a negligence claim, appellant must prove “(1) the existence of a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) an injury, and (4) that the breach of the duty of care was a proximate cause of the injury.”
David Homick v. Bozena Hellem Minn. Ct. App. 2018
5 Foreseeability is “a threshold issue related to duty that is ordinarily properly decided by the [district] court prior to submitting the case to the jury.” (quotation omitted).
Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
Montemayor v. Se-bright Prods., Inc., , 27 n.3 (Minn. 2011); -68 (Minn. 2007) (citing Whiteford, d at 918 ); III.
Fenrich v. Blake School 901 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Asset Marketing Services, LLC v. Cody Hoskins, Legacy, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Jury instructions must convey a clear and correct understanding of the law of the case as it relates to all the parties involved.” (quotation omitted).
Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc. 898 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
& Tool Works, (failure to warn); (design defect); (describing the issue of duty as a “threshold question” to be determined before liability is considered).
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Joseph Hodapp Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Charlotte Nelson v. Townhomes at Water’s Edge, Inc., Prairie Property Management of Fargo-Moorhead, Inc., Pro Landscapers, L.L.C., Ian … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Landowners have a duty to use reasonable care for th e safety of all .
John Doe 101, et al v. Matthew Feeney, et al., Walden Entertainment a/k/a Samaritan Casting, LLC, Werc Werk … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Mark Lanterman, et al v. Michael Roman Afremov Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The district court is not authorized to give a jury instruction that “give[s] prominence to and emphasize[s] particular facts disclosed by the evidence” in such a way that “singl[es] out elements or views upon the controversy which were proper for argument and discussion by counsel.” aff’d
Nereus Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc., d/b/a Bright Technologies and third party plaintiff, vs. VZ Hogs, LLP, Third … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We also consider whether “the possibility of an accident was clear to the person of ordinary prudence.” d 14, 27 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).
Sandra Williams, et al v. Canterbury Inn Shakopee, LLC, d/b/a Americas Best Value Inn & Suites, d/b/a Arizonas … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-29 (Minn. 2011) (stating that whether a defendant’s action satisfies a duty of care is a jury question).
Ernest Malisheske, et al., Great West Casualty Company, Intervenor v. Kevin Kortan, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The district court has broad discretion when selecting language for jury instructions.”
Grace Louise Hollingsworth v. State of Minnesota, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
John Osmanski, et al v. James and Jean Way d/b/a J & J Real Estate Properties, et al., … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Osmanskis argue that this court should impose a duty on the Star Tribune as a matter of public policy
David Charles Widmer, et al v. Dallas Jacob Albertson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Widmer therefore had to prove “(1) the existence of a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) an injury, and (4) that the breach of the duty of care was a proximate cause of the injury.”
Souhsiung Jack Chiu v. Timbershore Home Owners’ Association and third party plaintiff, vs. New Horizon Homes, Inc., Third … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To prevail on a negligence claim, Chiu must prove: “(1) the existence of a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) an injury, and (4) that the breach of the duty of care was a proximate cause of the injury.”
Fred Newell, et al v. Timothy Eide, et al. and third party plaintiffs, vs. Norcostco, Inc., Third Party … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Second Chance Investments, LLC v. Sabri Properties, LLC, et al., Puentes Exteriors, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Martin L. Harris v. Lang Nelson Associates, Inc. d/b/a Creekside Gables Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The existence of a duty of care is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.”
Mark L. Wiebusch v. Donald Leo Tschida Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jury instructions must be considered as a whole to determine whether they conveyed “a clear and correct understanding of the law of the case as it relates to all the parties involved.”
Scott Alan Wenker by Jeffrey Wenker, Trustee v. Xcel Energy, Inc., et al., City of Cottage Grove, et … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
at 178 (emphasis omitted) ().
Jay T. Nygard v. Patrick Walsh, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“Generally a defendant’s duty to a plaintiff is a threshold question because in the absence of a legal duty, the negligence claim fails.”); 709 (Minn. App. 1996) (describing a defamation claim as actionable only if the defamatory statements were not “suppor
William J. Cavanagh, et al v. Allen R. Arvig, et al., Chris Mensing, individually and d/b/a Lakes Country … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Negligence “To recover for a claim of negligence, a plaintiff must prove (1) the existence of a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) an injury, and (4) that the breach of the duty of care was a proximate cause of the injury.” 10 (Minn. 2011).
Gurvin Femrite, et al v. City of Lowry Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Negligence is generally defined as the failure to exercise such care as persons of ordinary prudence usually exercise under such circumstances.” (quotation omitted).
James Ariola as next of kin and trustee for Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son v. The City of … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Catlin Underwriting Agencies, Ltd., et al v. ALLETE, Inc., d/b/a Minnesota Power, Schneider Electric USA, Inc., f/k/a Square … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Negligence is generally defined as the failure to exercise such care as persons of ordinary prudence usually exercise under such circumstances.” (quotation omitted).
Doe 169 v. Brandon 845 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 2014
the court of appeals concluded that, even in the absence of a special relationship between the District Council and Doe, a jury could find a duty of care.
Eischen v. Crystal Valley Cooperative 835 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“To recover for a claim of negligence, a plaintiff must prove (1) the existence of a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) an injury, and (4) that the breach of the duty of care was a proximate cause of the injury.”
Kellogg v. Finnegan 823 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Foss, d at 322 ; Whiteford ex rel.
Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. 819 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2012
Williams v. Smith 820 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 2012
Renswick v. Wenzel 819 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 816 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2012
When liability is based on a theory of negligence, “a plaintiff must prove (1) the existence of a duty *582 of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) an injury, and (4) that the breach of the duty of care was a proximate cause of the injury.”