Cited by

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

91 citing documents.

Charlotte Nelson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
To recover on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must show: “(1) the existence of a duty of care; (2) a brea ch of that duty; (3) an injury; and (4) that the breach o f the duty was a proximate cause of the injury.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
John Doe 101, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“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, d 174, 177 (Minn. 2014).
Jeffrey Paul Hofmann, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Doe 169 v. Brandon , 6 (Minn. 2014) (“The existence of a duty of care is a threshold question because a defendant cannot breach a nonexistent duty.” ).
Jodi L. Toedter, Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Susan Ann Gray v. Winona County, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jodi L. Toedter, Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Susan Ann Gray v. Winona County, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“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
Frankie R. Christy v. Rottinghaus Company, Inc., d/b/a Subway, Rottinghaus Real Estate, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Frankie R. Christy v. Rottinghaus Company, Inc., d/b/a Subway, Rottinghaus Real Estate, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
To recover on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must show: “(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
Amanda Joe Carlson Senogles, as parent and guardian of Shungmanitou Washtay Kihega, a minor v. Peter Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Amanda Joe Carlson Senogles, as parent and guardian of Shungmanitou Washtay Kihega, a minor v. Peter Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The existence 4 of a duty of care is a threshold question because a defendant cannot breach a nonexistent duty.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
Scott B. Lindholm v. Carleton College, and third party v. Metropolitan Mechanical Contractors, third-party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Scott B. Lindholm v. Carleton College, and third party v. Metropolitan Mechanical Contractors, third-party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The existence of a duty of care is a threshold question because a defendant cannot breach a nonexistent duty.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
Michael Barlow v. Hospitality Center for Chinese, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael Barlow v. Hospitality Center for Chinese, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
To maintain a claim of negligence, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: “(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, d 174, 177 (Minn. 2014).
Isanti Estates, LLC v. McCarthy Well Company, McCullough & Sons, Incorporated d/b/a McCullough & Sons Well Drilling, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Isanti Estates, LLC v. McCarthy Well Company, McCullough & Sons, Incorporated d/b/a McCullough & Sons Well Drilling, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Doe 169 v. Brandon, (internal citation omitted).
Lois St. Aubin v. Caseys Retail Company d/b/a Caseys General Store Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lois St. Aubin v. Caseys Retail Company d/b/a Caseys General Store Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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
Sandra Williams v. Canterbury Inn Shakopee, LLC, d/b/a Americas Best Value Inn & Suites, d/b/a Arizonas Restaurant & … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Karla Kay Edenloff v. Maxistorage, LLC, a/k/a Maxistorage 1801, LLC, Maxistorage 1807, LLC and Maxistorage 1711, LLC d/b/a … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Sandra Williams v. Canterbury Inn Shakopee, LLC, d/b/a Americas Best Value Inn & Suites, d/b/a Arizonas Restaurant & … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Karla Kay Edenloff v. Maxistorage, LLC, a/k/a Maxistorage 1801, LLC, Maxistorage 1807, LLC and Maxistorage 1711, LLC d/b/a … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The existence of a duty of care is a threshold question because a defendant cannot breach a nonexistent duty.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
Pang Her Xiong v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Reliakor Services, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Pang Her Xiong v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Reliakor Services, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Doe 169 v. Brandon, d 174, 177 (Minn. 2014).
Julie Strelow v. Winona Steamboat Days Festival Association Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Julie Strelow v. Winona Steamboat Days Festival Association Minn. Ct. App. 2015
5 “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
State of Minnesota v. Javon Lamar Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Javon Lamar Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Compare 10 Minnesota Practice, CRIMJIG 13.98 (defining negligence as “the doing of something that a reasonable person would not do or the failure to do something that a reasonable person would do under the circumstances”), with Doe 169 v. Brandon, (defining negligence in a civil context as “the failure to exercise the level of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the same or similar circumstances”).
John Osmanski v. James and Jean Way d/b/a J & J Real Estate Properties, Shakopee Distribution Services, LLC, … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
John Osmanski v. James and Jean Way d/b/a J & J Real Estate Properties, Shakopee Distribution Services, LLC, … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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
Kristine Benton v. Tom Hedine Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kristine Benton v. Tom Hedine Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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 3 was a proximate cause of the injury.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
Fred Newell v. Timothy Eide, and third party v. Norcostco, Inc., Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Fred Newell v. Timothy Eide, and third party v. Norcostco, Inc., Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The existence of a duty of care is a threshold question because a defendant cannot breach a nonexistent duty.” Doe 169 v. Brandon
Martin L. Harris v. Lang Nelson Associates, Inc. d/b/a Creekside Gables Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Martin L. Harris v. Lang Nelson Associates, Inc. d/b/a Creekside Gables Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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
Scott Alan Wenker by Jeffrey Wenker, Trustee v. Xcel Energy, Inc., City of Cottage Grove Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Scott Alan Wenker by Jeffrey Wenker, Trustee v. Xcel Energy, Inc., City of Cottage Grove Minn. Ct. App. 2015
4 In Minnesota, “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).
Gary Carlson v. Ray Barta Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Gary Carlson v. Ray Barta Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Catlin Underwriting Agencies, Ltd. v. ALLETE, Inc., d/b/a Minnesota Power, Schneider Electric USA, Inc., f/k/a Square D Company, … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Catlin Underwriting Agencies, Ltd. v. ALLETE, Inc., d/b/a Minnesota Power, Schneider Electric USA, Inc., f/k/a Square D Company, … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
8 I. Duty of Care “The existence of a duty of care is a threshold question because a defendant cannot breach a nonexistent duty.” Doe 169 v. Brandon