Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lundman v. McKown, 530 N.W.2d 807.

24 citing documents.

In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Generally, “the conduct of trial [is] left to the discretion of the trial court.” rev. denied (Minn. May 31, 1995).
In Re the Custody of J. K. S. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Mike Allen Homes, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
rev. denied (Minn. May 31, 1995).
In re the Marriage of: Matthew Beland, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
And “courts should determine the validity of the privilege by considering whether the testimony will actually be adverse.” rev. denied (Minn. May 31, 1995).
Estate of William L. Pickett, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
rev. denied (Minn. May 31, 1995).
In re the Marriage of: Rupam Sinha, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
the conduct of trial are left to the discretion of the [district] cour t and will not be reversed abse nt an abuse of discretion.” Lundman v. McKown , review denied (Minn. May 31, 1995).
SRRT Properties, LP, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Rulings on evidentiary matters and the conduct of trial are left to the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.” review denied (Minn. May 31, 1995).
Morgan Wright, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
l and was an abuse of discretion.” Wright admits that her “first trial counsel did not comply with the Court’s scheduling order” and that her “initial trial counsel indicated that he would not call other witnesses.” “Rulings on evidentiary matters and the conduct of trial are left to the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.” review denied (Minn. May 31, 1995).
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 788 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 788 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
But in the area of wrongful-death damages for a child, “past cases represent history, not controlling law.” review denied (Minn. May 31, 1995).
Foss v. Kincade 746 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Foss v. Kincade 746 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Minnesota courts have most frequently addressed the existence of a duty to protect in the context of so-called "special relationships,” which arise when a person “accepts responsibility to protect another, although there was no initial duty.” review denied (Minn. May 31, 1995).
Laska v. Anoka County 696 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Laska v. Anoka County 696 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
“A special relationship may also arise where one accepts responsibility to protect another, although there was no initial duty.” review denied (Minn. May 31, 1995).
Meyer v. Lindala 675 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Meyer v. Lindala 675 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
-26 (Minn.App.1995) (finding no special relationship between Christian Science church and critically ill child who died, where church’s teachings inspired parent to care for child through prayer, and parent, when hiring Christian Science nurse, relied on church’s listing of individuals that met requirements for fa
Woehrle v. City of Mankato 647 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Woehrle v. City of Mankato 647 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
review denied (Minn. May 31, 1995).
Sunnarborg v. Howard 581 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Sunnarborg v. Howard 581 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
“A custodial parent has a special relationship to a dependent and vulnerable child that gives rise'to duty to protect the child from harm.” review denied (Minn. May 31, 1995), and cert.
Hughs on Behalf of Praul v. Cole 572 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Hughs on Behalf of Praul v. Cole 572 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(“Minnesota has a compelling interest in protecting the welfare of children”), review denied (Minn. May 31, 1995), cert.
Geibe v. Geibe 571 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Geibe v. Geibe 571 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
To support her contention that stepparents married to the noncustodial parent may stand in loco parentis to their stepchildren, review denied (Minn. May 31, 1995), cert.