Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Olson v. Ford Motor Co., 558 N.W.2d 491.

80 citing documents.

Eischen Cabinet Co. v. Hildebrandt 683 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 2004
Eischen Cabinet Co. v. Hildebrandt 683 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 2004
Advantage Capital Management v. City of Northfield 664 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Advantage Capital Management v. City of Northfield 664 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
§ 645.17(1) (2002); Olson v. Ford Motor Co. , (discussing alleged absurdity); Wegener v. Comm’r of Revenue, (discussing- unreasonable result at variance with manifest intention).
Chapman v. Commissioner of Revenue 651 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2002
Chapman v. Commissioner of Revenue 651 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2002
Msi v. Lmcit 646 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust 646 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Msi v. Lmcit 646 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
§ 645.17(1) (2000); review denied (Minn. Feb.
Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust 646 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
§ 645.17(1) (2000); Wegener v. Comm’r of Revenue, review denied (Minn. Feb.
Occhino v. Grover 640 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Occhino v. Grover 640 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Wegener v. Comm’r of Revenue
Guderian v. Olmsted County 595 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Guderian v. Olmsted County 595 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
*543 (Minn.1997) (citing Minn.Stat.
Marsden v. Crawford 589 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Marsden v. Crawford 589 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
the supreme court agreed that the seat belt gag rule bars “the introduction of evidence of the *807 plaintiffs personal seat belt use in a crash-worthiness action.” Id.
Brooks v. Commissioner of Public Safety 584 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Brooks v. Commissioner of Public Safety 584 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In re the Risk Level Determination of C.M. 578 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Matter of Cm 578 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In re the Risk Level Determination of C.M. 578 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
The Minnesota Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to “enjoin[] the legislature from eliminating those remedies that have vested at common law without a legitimate legislative purpose.” -97 (Minn.1997) (emphasis omitted).
Matter of Cm 578 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
-97 (Minn.1997) (emphasis omitted).
Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency v. Boyne 578 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1998
Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency v. Boyne 578 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1998
(stating that our role is not to challenge the wisdom of the legislature, but “to *366 give effect to its will as expressed in the unambiguous language of the statute”).
State v. Lucas 578 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Lucas 578 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Haghighi v. Russian-American Broadcasting Co. 577 N.W.2d 927 Minn. 1998
Haghighi v. Russian-American Broadcasting Co. 577 N.W.2d 927 Minn. 1998
6 . Olson v.Olson, Feick v. State Farm Mut.
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 568 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 1997
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 568 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 1997