Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Louis v. Louis, 636 N.W.2d 314.

80 citing documents.

Kristine Benton v. Tom Hedine Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A landowner’s duty of care to entrants does not require him to protect against dangerous conditions “whose danger is known or obvious” to entrants, “unless the [landowner] should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.” (quotation omitted).
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
4 “[The supreme court] ha[s] consistently held that a landowner has a duty to use reasonable care for the safety of all such persons invited upon the premises.” (quotations omitted).
Kellogg v. Finnegan 823 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Kellogg v. Finnegan 823 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
To prevail in a negligence action, a plaintiff must prove each of four elements: “the existence of a duty of care, a breach of that duty, an injury, and the breach of that duty being the proximate cause of the injury.”
Renswick v. Wenzel 819 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Renswick v. Wenzel 819 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Zimbovskiy v. Union Pacific Railroad 812 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Zimbovskiy v. Union Pacific Railroad 812 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
The district court concluded that appellant “has simply failed to show that there is any issue of material fact relative to the issue [of] whether delay of a few seconds in the train crew’s activation of the emergency brake was a proximate cause of the collision or [appellant’s injuries.” (defendant in negligence action is entitled to summary judgment if a plaintiff fails to prove that a duty of care existed, that the duty was breached, that the plaintiff was injured, and that the breach of the
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
Presbrey v. James 781 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Presbrey v. James 781 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
A plaintiff in a negligence action must prove four elements: “(1) the existence of a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) an injury, and (4) the breach of that duty being the proximate cause of the injury.”
Foss v. Kincade 766 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 2009
Foss v. Kincade 766 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 2009
Foss v. Kincade 746 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Foss v. Kincade 746 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Olmanson v. LeSueur County 693 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 2005
Olmanson v. LeSueur County 693 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 2005
-33 (Minn.1985); Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 174
Olmanson v. Le Sueur County 673 N.W.2d 506 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Olmanson v. Le Sueur County 673 N.W.2d 506 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Alwin v. St. Paul Saints Baseball Club, Inc. 672 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Alwin v. St. Paul Saints Baseball Club, Inc. 672 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Bundy v. Holmquist 669 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Bundy v. Holmquist 669 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
-19 (Minn.2001), and stated that because it is the landowner or possessor who owes the duty of care to entrants upon the land, the critical issue in the case was who owned or possessed the land where the injury occurred.
Pine Island Farmers Coop v. Erstad & Riemer, P.A. 649 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 2002
Pine Island Farmers Coop v. Erstad & Riemer, P.A. 649 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 2002
Star Centers, Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P. 644 N.W.2d 72 Minn. 2002
Star Centers, Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P. 644 N.W.2d 72 Minn. 2002
Hamblin v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc. 636 N.W.2d 150 Minn. Ct. App. 2001