Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rinn v. Minnesota State Agricultural Society, 611 N.W.2d 361.

26 citing documents.

Jennifer Odegaard, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Soc ’y, 364-65 (Minn. App. 2000).
Regina Gower, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Robert Sanden, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
wall “could be a hazard for snowmobiles.” And Robert Sanden testified that the retaining wall was “a safety concern” because, if a snowmobiler does not 14 know the retaining wall extends into Lake Street, they could “run into it,” causing “a serious injury.” The Tysdals argue that the district court’s findings were based on speculation, and Adler v. Interstate Power Co., 230 N.W.
Travis J Maahs, a Minnesota resident, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Acuity, A Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Gene Stengel, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Suzanne Krupp, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Isaac C. Johnson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Soc’y, -64 (Minn. App. 2000).
LeAnn Wilbourn, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Soc’y , (quotation omitted).
Paul Boyum, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Soc’y, (“[S]peculation as to who caused the dangerous condition, or how long it existed, warrants judgment for the landowner.”) .
Kathleen Corte, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Sandra D’Antonio, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Patti Lang, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Soc’ y, (concerning the injury sustained by a spectator who saw a puddle covering a step on a staircase then chose to s tep into the puddle, and fell) .
Ransford Frimpong, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
5 (Minn. App. 2000) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552 (1986)).
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
Soc’y, (reversing summary judgment to landowner on the basis that a small puddle was an obviously dangerous condition because it extended the landowner’s “open and obvious defense” to a condition that was “relatively obscure”).
Jessica Mattson v. City of Rushford, Minnowa Construction, Inc., State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, Edwards and Kelcey, … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jessica Mattson v. City of Rushford, Minnowa Construction, Inc., State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, Edwards and Kelcey, … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Sandra Williams v. Canterbury Inn Shakopee, LLC, d/b/a Americas Best Value Inn & Suites, d/b/a Arizonas Restaurant & … 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
Soc’y, (stating that a landowner owes a duty of care to entrants upon the land to protect them from dangerous conditions the landowner created or has actual or constructive knowledge of).
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
Soc’y, –65 (Minn. App. 2000).
Julie Strelow v. Winona Steamboat Days Festival Association Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Julie Strelow v. Winona Steamboat Days Festival Association Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kristine Benton v. Tom Hedine Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kristine Benton v. Tom Hedine Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Soc’y, (“Unless the dangerous condition actually resulted from the direct actions of a landowner or his or her employees, a negligence theory of recovery is appropriate only where the landowner had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition.”).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by