Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Olson v. Ische, 343 N.W.2d 284.

36 citing documents.

Fenrich v. Blake Sch. 920 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2018
Joel Wells v. Rick E. Mattox Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Joel Wells v. Rick E. Mattox Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Terterova v. byous/nestor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mellett v. Fairview Health Services 634 N.W.2d 421 Minn. 2001
Mellett v. Fairview Health Services 634 N.W.2d 421 Minn. 2001
A joint enterprise requires “ ‘(1) a mutual understanding for a common purpose, and (2) a right to a voice in the direction and control of the means used to carry out the common purpose.’ ”
Witzman v. Lehrman, Lehrman & Flom 601 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 1999
Witzman v. Lehrman, Lehrman & Flom 601 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 1999
(holding that the facts failed to support a valid claim based on section 876); (same).
Nickelson v. Mall of America Co. 593 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Nickelson v. Mall of America Co. 593 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
HB by and Through Clark v. Whittemore 552 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1996
Boop v. City of Lino Lakes 502 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Boop v. City of Lino Lakes 502 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Interlocutory Appeal of Denial of Summary Judgment on Special Duty Issue The city, as any person, has no common law duty to prevent a third person from injuring another, unless “a special relation exists * * * which imposes a duty * * * to control the third person’s conduct.” See Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 315 (1965).
Stepnes v. Adams 452 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Stepnes v. Adams 452 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
where the supreme court held that a plaintiff, injured by an automobile driven by an intoxicated person, had no cause of action against the passenger in the vehicle.
Lind v. Slowinski 450 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Lind v. Slowinski 450 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
is the controlling authority in this case.
Peterson v. Fortier 406 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Peterson v. Fortier 406 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Leaon v. Washington County 397 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 1986
Leaon v. Washington County 397 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 1986
Rather, plaintiffs’ theory seems to be that the four deputies are liable under a theory of “joint concerted tortious conduct.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 876 (1977)
Stevens v. Thielen 394 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Stevens v. Thielen 394 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(no duty arose where injury caused by conduct of intoxicated third party, with whom defendant had no special relationship); (absent special relationship between intoxicated driver-owner and passenger, passenger owed no duties to public to control operation of vehicle); (after discussing possible liability under the Act and liability based on some sort of special
Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc. 396 N.W.2d 10 Minn. 1986
Andrade v. Ellefson 391 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 1986
Andrade v. Ellefson 391 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 1986
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315.
Hoffman v. Wiltscheck 379 N.W.2d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hoffman v. Wiltscheck 379 N.W.2d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Although a landowner may have a duty to control- the conduct of an invitee on his land, we find no authority for the proposition that a landowner has a duty owed to third persons to control an invitee to the extent of preventing him from leaving the land.
Weber Ex Rel. Sanft v. Goetzke 371 N.W.2d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Weber Ex Rel. Sanft v. Goetzke 371 N.W.2d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Meany v. Newell 367 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1985
Meany v. Newell 367 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1985
The majority held that some special relationships can support a negligence action against a provider of alcohol
Meany v. Newell 352 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Meany v. Newell 352 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
the court again implied that some special relationships can impose liability: We hold that a passenger has no duty to members of the public to control the operation of a motor vehicle by its intoxicated owner, where, as * * * here, there is no special relationship between the *782 driver-owner and the pas
Holmquist v. Miller 352 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Holmquist v. Miller 352 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
is not persuasive contradictory authority.'