Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Oslin v. State, 543 N.W.2d 408.

23 citing documents.

Minor Doe 601, a minor, by and through his mother and natural guardian, Mother Doe 601, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(citing Oslin v. State , 11 -16 (Minn. App. 1996) (determining that decisions about supervision and retention “were necessarily entwined in a layer of policy-making”), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Doe 598, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Hollis J. Larson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
.” review denied (Minn. Apr.
John Howard Bartz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
John Howard Bartz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Apr.
Teresa McDonald v. Allina Health System d/b/a United Hospital Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Teresa McDonald v. Allina Health System d/b/a United Hospital Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The zone of danger 6 requirement may be replaced by an intentional tort such as defamation or another willful, wanton, or malicious act.” review denied (Minn. Apr.
C.B. ex rel. L.B. v. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 726 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
CB Ex Rel. LB v. EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN 726 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
CB Ex Rel. LB v. EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN 726 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
review denied (Minn. Apr.
C.B. ex rel. L.B. v. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 726 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
To make out a successful claim for negligent supervision, the plaintiff must prove (1) “the employee’s conduct was foreseeable;” and (2) “the employer failed to exercise ordinary care when supervising the employee.” review denied (Minn. Apr.
Molloy v. Meier 660 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Molloy v. Meier 660 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
-25 (Minn.1990) (a custodian of another person may be liable for consequences of harm to that person inflicted by a third person when that harm is reasonably foreseeable); (holding that if an *452 event is reasonably foreseeable, duty to act may exist as a matter of law).
Odenthal v. Minnesota Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists 657 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Odenthal v. Minnesota Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists 657 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
To prevail, the plaintiff must show “that the employee’s conduct was foreseeable and that the employer faded to exercise ordinary care when supervising the employee.” Oslin v. State, *576 (citation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Patterson v. Wu Family Corp. 594 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Patterson v. Wu Family Corp. 594 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
review denied (Minn. Apr.
Gleason v. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations 563 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Gleason v. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations 563 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
-16 (Minn.App.1996), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Phong Thi Doan v. Medtronic, Inc. 560 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Phong Thi Doan v. Medtronic, Inc. 560 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(plaintiff could assert negligent infliction of emotional distress claim if her defamation action stood); -14, 417 (Minn. App.1996) (when defamation and battery claims against employer were dismissed because the conduct was not work related, negligent infliction of emotional distress claim also failed), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Bruchas v. Preventive Care, Inc. 553 N.W.2d 440 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Bruchas v. Preventive Care, Inc. 553 N.W.2d 440 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(citing cases involving claims based on sexual assault, assault and battery, sexual abuse, and shooting incident), review denied (Minn. Apr.