Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Larson v. Larson, 373 N.W.2d 287.

145 citing documents.

Classic Auto Storage, LLC v. Restoration Technologies, Inc Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Classic Auto Storage, LLC v. Restoration Technologies, Inc Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“[T]he existence of a legal duty is an issue for the court to determine as a matter of law.”
James R. Martin, Patrick S. Martin v. Mid-America Festivals Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2023
James R. Martin, Patrick S. Martin v. Mid-America Festivals Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Generally, the existence of a legal duty is an issue for the court to determine as a matter of law.”
Danna Rochelle Back, Minn. 2023
d at 869 (“Whether a person has a duty of care ‘is an is sue for the court to determine as a matter of law.’ ” () ).
Court of Appeals Hudson, J. Dissenting as to Part I, Anderson, J., David Smits, as Trustee for the … Minn. 2022
Doe 169 v. Brandon, (“The existence of a duty of care is a question of law that we review de novo.”); (“Generally, the existence of a legal duty is an issue for the court to determine as a matter of law.”).
Suzanne Krupp, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. , ; Rinn v. Minn. State Agr ic.
Danna Rochelle Back, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The decision in Back II was based on the holdings of State v. Cantrell , (determining th at culpable negligence requires the existence of a duty), (stating that whether a person owes a duty of care “is an issue for the court to determine as a ma tter of law”), (explaining that th e existence of a duty is an essential element of a negligence claim).
Brad Ronald Stevens, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The district court dismissed the complaint based on primary assu mption of the risk, which relates to a defendant’s legal duty to prote ct a plaintiff from harm, and “the existence of a legal duty is an issue for the court to determine as a matter of law.” ( quoting Larson v. Larson , ), review denied (Minn. Jan.
First Minnesota Bank as assignee of Sacor Financial, Inc., as assignee of National Credit Acceptance, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(declining to address issues rendered unnecessary by the resolution of another issue).
John Doe 121, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
10 Courts in Minnesota have consis tently stated that in “close cases,” foreseeability is an issue for the jury to resolve.3 See, e.g., Astleford, d at 755
Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc. 898 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc. 898 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
when it resulted from the disabling of a permanently affixed safety feature); -89 (Minn. 1985) (holding that foreseeability “was clear and should have been decided by the court as a matter of law” when the only evidence of foreseeability was a vague comment by an intoxicated person 2 months before the injury).
BPG Grand Oak Building Retail Investors, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Michael Barlow v. Hospitality Center for Chinese, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael Barlow v. Hospitality Center for Chinese, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Here, the district court granted summary judgment for HCC because it concluded that “[t]he record in this case shows a lack of proof as to the essential element of duty.” “Generally, the existence of a legal duty is an issue for the court to determine as a matter of law.”
State v. Back 775 N.W.2d 866 Minn. 2009
State v. Back 775 N.W.2d 866 Minn. 2009
Whether a person has a duty of care “is an issue for the court to determine as a matter of law.”
Becker v. Mayo Foundation 737 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 2007
Becker v. Mayo Foundation 737 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 2007
Bjerke v. Johnson 727 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Bjerke v. Johnson 727 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Anderson v. State, Department of Natural Resources 674 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Anderson v. STATE, DEPT. OF NAT. RESOURCES 674 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Anderson v. STATE, DEPT. OF NAT. RESOURCES 674 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Anderson v. State, Department of Natural Resources 674 N.W.2d 748 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
Molloy v. Meier 660 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Molloy v. Meier 660 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Louis v. Louis 636 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2001
Louis v. Louis 636 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2001
In Re the Trusteeship of the Trust of Williams 631 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re the Trusteeship of the Trust of Williams 631 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Gradjelick v. Hance 627 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Gradjelick v. Hance 627 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Funchess v. Cecil Newman Corp. 615 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Funchess v. Cecil Newman Corp. 615 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Sandborg v. Blue Earth County 615 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 2000
Sandborg v. Blue Earth County 615 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 2000
Rinn v. Minnesota State Agricultural Society 611 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Rinn v. Minnesota State Agricultural Society 611 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Sandborg v. Blue Earth County 601 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Sandborg v. Blue Earth County 601 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Gilbertson v. Leininger 599 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1999
Gilbertson v. Leininger 599 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1999
S.W. v. Spring Lake Park School District No. 16 592 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1999