Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Andrade v. Ellefson, 391 N.W.2d 836.

45 citing documents.

Don Lorge, Minn. 2022
Jodi L. Toedter, Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Susan Ann Gray v. Winona County, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jodi L. Toedter, Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Susan Ann Gray v. Winona County, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Doug Blaine v. City of Sartell, County of Stearns 865 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Doug Blaine v. City of Sartell, County of Stearns 865 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
of Freeborn, –91, 793, 798 (Minn. 2005) (applying public-duty doctrine and concluding that “special duty” existed, where father alleged that county’s negligent investigation of child-abuse reports resulted in child’s murder by mother’s friend); 843 (Minn. 1986) (applying public-duty doctrine and concluding that “special duty” existed, where fathers alleged that county’s negligent inspection and supervision of daycare center resulted in infants’ injury by daycare workers); Gilbert v. Billman Cons
Ironwood Springs Christian Ranch, Inc. v. Emmaus 801 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Ironwood Springs Christian Ranch, Inc. v. Emmaus 801 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Louis Park, -07 (Minn.1979)
Bjerke v. Johnson 742 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2007
Laska v. Anoka County 696 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Laska v. Anoka County 696 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
consists of uniquely vulnerable persons: small children, often infants, left by their working parents in a home other than their own, and left in the care of another person for some period of less than 24 hours of the day.”
Radke v. County of Freeborn 694 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 2005
Radke v. County of Freeborn 694 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 2005
in which we applied the Cracraft factors and held that the county owed a special duty to children who were injured in a county-licensed home day care facility.
Radke v. County of Freeborn 676 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Radke v. County of Freeborn 676 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
S.W. v. Spring Lake Park School District No. 16 592 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
S.W. v. Spring Lake Park School District No. 16 592 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Loftus v. Hennepin County 591 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Loftus v. Hennepin County 591 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Vaughn v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 558 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1997
Vaughn v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 558 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1997
-42 (Minn.1986) (emphasizing that actual knowledge, not constructive knowledge, of a dangerous condition is required to impose “a special duty to do something about that condition”); Washington Metro Area Transit Auth.
HB by and Through Clark v. Whittemore 552 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1996
HB by and Through Clark v. Whittemore 552 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1996
Such a duty might exist on the part of one who has custody of another under circumstances where the party seeking protection is deprived of or lacks the capacity for normal opportunities of self-defense
Hoppe Ex Rel. Dykema v. Kandiyohi County 543 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1996
Hoppe Ex Rel. Dykema v. Kandiyohi County 543 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1996
In reversing the summary judgment entered in favor of the county, the court of appeals acknowledged that there was no express provision for imposing civil liability under the circumstances of record, but held, in application of this court’s that a special relationship existed between the county and this vulnerable adult “giving ris[e] to a tort duty of care owed by the county to Hoppe.” Hoppe, supra, slip op.
McNamara v. McLean 531 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
McNamara v. McLean 531 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(mere “constructive knowledge” of a dangerous condition is insufficient to create a private duty).
Larsen v. Wright County Human Service Agency-Day Care Division 526 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Larsen v. Wright County Human Service Agency-Day Care Division 526 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
-42 (Minn.1986) (state has special duty to protect children from physical or sexual abuse).
Harper v. Herman 499 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1993
Harper v. Herman 499 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1993
The court of appeals found that Herman owed Harper a duty to warn him of the shallowness of the water because Herman knew that it was “dangerously shallow.” We have previously stated that “[a]ctual knowledge of a dangerous condition tends to impose a special duty to do something about that condition.” (holding that county was not immune to charge of improper supervision of day care center where children were abused when county knew about overcrowding at the center).
Masonick v. J.P. Homes, Inc. 494 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Gertken v. State 493 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Gertken v. State 493 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(where the court raised the statute as a potential defense, but found it was waived because of liability insurance).
Invest Cast, Inc. v. City of Blaine 471 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Invest Cast, Inc. v. City of Blaine 471 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Further, the supreme court has stated that on an appropriate record “[f]und allocation is an immune discretionary function.” , 840 n. 4 (Minn.1986).
Frank's Livestock & Poultry Farm, Inc. v. City of Wells 431 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Frank's Livestock & Poultry Farm, Inc. v. City of Wells 431 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See, Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc., 293 Minn. 220
Brandt v. State 428 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Brandt v. State 428 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
where the supreme court examined whether the county of Ano-ka was entitled to governmental immunity under Minn.Stat.
Chabot v. City of Sauk Rapids 412 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Chabot v. City of Sauk Rapids 412 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
§ 466.06 (1982); -41 (Minn.1986) (county, as employee of state, had immunity, but waived immunity to extent of its liability insurance).
State v. Papp 415 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Papp 415 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Seaton v. County of Scott 404 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Seaton v. County of Scott 404 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 1987