Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Doe 169 v. Brandon, 845 N.W.2d 174.

91 citing documents.

Josh Campion, et al v. National Collegiate Athletics Association, The Big Ten Conference, Inc., The University of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Doe 169 v. Brandon, (stating that existence of duty is generally question of law reviewed de novo); Germann v. F.L.
Joe Schafer, et al., as Parents and Natural Guardians of Minor W.S. v. Oakwood Community Church Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Doe 169 v. Brandon, d 174, 177 (Minn. 2014).
Jennifer Odegaard v. 610 MOB Partners, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Negligence is the failure to exercise the level of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
Doe A.S. v. St. John the Evangelist Episcopal, St. Paul, Episcopal Church in Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Negligence is the failure to exercise the level of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
State of Minnesota v. Charquandra Charnetta Henry Minn. Ct. App. 2026
And “negligently” is a legal term of art that means “fail[ing] to exercise the level of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.” Doe 169 v. Brandon, (defining negligence and explaining that the Minnesota Supreme Court has “upheld the constitutionality of using an ordinary negligence standard in criminal statutes”).
Erica Robinson v. Sheraton Minneapolis West Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Negligence generally is defined as “the failure to exercise the level of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.” Doe 169 v. Brandon, (d 914, 916 (Minn. 1980)).
Kaylen Stiever, et al v. Lake County Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Kaylen Stiever, et al v. Lake County Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The existence of a duty of care is a threshold question because a defendant cannot breach a nonexistent duty.” Doe 169 v. Brandon, d 174, 177 (Minn. 2014).
Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc., … Minn. 2026
Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc., … Minn. 2026
Co., ); see also Doe 169 v. Brandon, (stating that an injury was not foreseeable as a matter of law where “undisputed facts, considered together,” established that the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury was too attenuated).
JHP 2309 Lyndale, LLC v. Icon Homes LLC, Paragon Restoration, LLC, Installed Building Solutions II, LLC, Rigid Building … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Regina Gower v. City of Edina Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Negligence is the failure to exercise the level of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
Shona Tahiro, parent and natural guardian of Ramaden Waliye, a minor v. The Higher Ground Academy, Pride Transportation … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
4 a proximate cause of the injury.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
Michelin Properties LLC, Clean Care LLC v. Jacobson Environmental, PLLC, et al., City & County Credit Union Minn. Ct. App. 2025
17 report.11 “The existence of a duty of care is a threshold question because a defendant cannot breach a nonexistent duty.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
Benjamin Unke, et al v. Michael Braun, et al., Neil Constine, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“The existence of a duty of care is a threshold question because a defendant cannot breach a nonexistent duty.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
Travis J Maahs, a Minnesota resident v. Menard, Inc., a foreign corporation, registered in Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Negligence is the failure to exercise the level of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
James R. Martin, Patrick S. Martin v. Mid-America Festivals Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2023
James R. Martin, Patrick S. Martin v. Mid-America Festivals Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2023
5 “Negligence is the failure to exercise the level of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
Pedro Alonzo, et al v. Richard Menholt, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Negligence is the failure to exercise the level of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
Jane Doe v. Special School District No. 6, South St. Paul Public Schools, ABC School District, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
As an alternative basis for affirming, the school district contends that Babbitt’s criminal acts were a superseding cause that broke the 21 Generally, “a person does not owe a duty of care to another—e.g., to aid, protect, or warn that person—if the harm is caused by a third party’s conduct.” Doe 169 v. Brandon, -78 (Minn. 2014).
In Re: Henry Hickman v. Paul Schnell, Commissioner of MN Dept. of Corrections, et al., Sgt. D. Franklin, … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Negligence is the failure to exercise the level of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
Anthony Kelley v. The Bernick’s Company, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Negligence is the failure to exercise the level of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
Court of Appeals Hudson, J. Dissenting as to Part I, Anderson, J., David Smits, as Trustee for the … Minn. 2022
What risk is foreseeable “depends heavily on the facts and circumstances of each case.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
Troy David Mack v. Blake Azurin Martin, William Azurin Martin, Ian Alexander Stinson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Negligence is the failure to exercise the level of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
Mark D. Island, et al v. Jason D. Ferguson, Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Negligence is the fa ilure to exercise the level of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.” Doe 169 v. Brandon, (citation omitted).
Jenny Pachicano v. Julie Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The foreseeability of danger “depends heavily on the facts and circumstances of each case.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
Charity Slaughter v. Independent School District No. 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Meagan Abel, Minn. 2020
When asserting a negligence claim, “[t]he existence of a duty of care is a threshold question because a defend ant cannot breach a nonexistent duty.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
Ransford Frimpong v. Taylor Ridge 26 LLC and third-party plaintiff, vs. Taylor Ridge Condominium Association, Inc., et al., … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See id.; Doe 169 v. Brandon , .
Andrew Geist, individually and as parent and natural guardian of minor, T.G. v. East Central Energy, One Way … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Meagan Abel v. Abbott Northwestern Hospital, et al., St. Mary's University Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Cory L. Hendricksen, as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Ashton Hendricksen, decedent v. Tristan … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Doe 169 v. Brandon , -78 (Minn. 201 4).
Ashen S. Diehl v. 3M Company Minn. Ct. App. 2019
if the harm is caused by a third party’s conduct.’” (quoting Doe 169 v. Brandon, -78 (Minn. 2014)).
James M. Erickson v. Darlene P. Klenck, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
n-law negligence claim, arguing that he “is qualified to 6 testify” regarding his injuries and that he “has the right to pursue his negligence claim in the absence of expert medical testimony of causation and damages.” “Negligence is the failure to exercise the level of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
Warren v. Dinter 926 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2019
Warren v. Dinter 926 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2019
Doe 169 v. Brandon , , 178 (Minn. 2014).
Fenrich v. Blake Sch. 920 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2018
Fenrich v. Blake Sch. 920 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2018
Doe 169 v. Brandon , , 177 (Minn. 2014) (citation omitted).
John Doe 121 v. Diocese of Winona, St. Mary's Catholic Church Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Doe 169 v. Brandon, -78 (Minn. 2014).
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
“To recover on 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 was a proximate cause of the injury.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
Jennifer Smith, individually and as parent and natural guardian of Zoeie Meister, a minor v. Patricia J. Holloman, … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Negligence is the failure to exercise the level of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
Said Ahmed Nur v. Jimmy Johns Sandwiches Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“To recover on 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 was a proximate cause of the injury.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
Jenella Joyce Conda, as trustee for the heirs and next of kin of Ronald Eugene Conda v. Honeywell … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“To recover on 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 was a proximate cause of the injury.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
Bernadette L. Russell v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Negligence is the failure 10 to exercise the level of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
The foreseeability of danger “depends heavily on the facts and circumstances of each case.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc. 898 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc. 898 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
We have held as a matter of law that an injury is not reasonably foreseeable when the “undisputed facts, considered together,” established that the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiffs injury was “too attenuated.” Doe 169 v. Brandon, (holding as a matter of law that a church’s district council owed no *630 duty to protect a plaintiff from a church volunteer’s sexual abuse when the council was not responsible for employing or supervising the volunteer); see also Huber, d
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Joseph Hodapp Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A risk is foreseeable if it is one that “ was objectively reasonable to expect, not simply whether it was within the realm of any conceivable possibility.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
Pamela Ristau, on behalf of her minor child Mitch Ristau and Mitch Ristau, individually v. Roger Ristau, et … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“To recover on a claim of negligence, a plai ntiff 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 was a proximate cause of the injury.” Doe 169 v. Brandon