Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Bohdan v. Alltool Mfg., Co., 411 N.W.2d 902.

38 citing documents.

Mariam Aromashodu, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Co., rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
Hollis J. Larson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
If a reasonable person could be expected to endure the distress, the la w does not intervene.” Elstrom, d at 57; see also Bohdan v. Alltool Mfg., Co. , 08 (Minn. App. 1987) (“Even if severe emotional distress exists, the defendant may es cape liability if the di stress is exaggerated in comparison to what a reasonable person would expe rience under the circumstances .
Michelle Kirchner v. Patricia Jernell, Turpen Realty Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michelle Kirchner v. Patricia Jernell, Turpen Realty Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Paul, (citing malicious prosecution as example of intentional tort in data-practices-act claim); Bohdan v. Alltool Mfg., Co., (noting that plaintiffs may recover damages for mental anguish and suffering in a malicious prosecution action because plaintiffs have suffered a “direct invasion” of their rights).
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 834 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 834 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
To prevail on this claim, a plaintiff must establish that he or she “is within a zone of danger of physical impact, reasonably fears for his or her own safety, and consequently suffers severe emotional distress with resultant physical injury.” Bohdan v. Alltool Mfg., Co., review denied (Minn. Nov.
Yath v. Fairview Clinics, N. P. 767 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Yath v. Fairview Clinics, N. P. 767 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
A plaintiff may recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress only “when that plaintiff is within a zone of danger of physical impact, reasonably fears for his or her own safety, and consequently suffers severe emotional distress with resultant physical injury.” Bohdan v. Alltool Mfg., Co., review denied (Minn. Nov.
Jensen v. Walsh 609 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Jensen v. Walsh 609 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
ress including insomnia, crying spells, a fear of answering the door and telephone, and depression necessitating treatment was not sufficiently severe), review denied (Minn. July 27, 1995); Strauss, d at 913 (holding that general embarrassment, nervousness, and depression were not sufficient to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress); Bohdan v. Alltool Mfg., Co., -09 (Minn.App.1987) (holding that claims of severe distress insufficient to withstand summary judgment due to
Wallin v. Minnesota Department of Corrections 598 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Wallin v. Minnesota Department of Corrections 598 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Bohdan v. Alltool Mfg., Co., review denied (Minn. Nov.
Patterson v. Wu Family Corp. 594 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Patterson v. Wu Family Corp. 594 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Co., review denied (Minn. Nov.
Phong Thi Doan v. Medtronic, Inc. 560 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Phong Thi Doan v. Medtronic, Inc. 560 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Co., review denied (Minn. Nov.
Oslin v. State 543 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Oslin v. State 543 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Co., review denied (Minn. Nov.
Elstrom v. Independent School District No. 270 533 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Elstrom v. Independent School District No. 270 533 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(negligent infliction of emotional distress claim dependent upon defamation claim cannot stand alone), pet.
Bolton v. DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES, STATE 527 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Bolton v. DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES, STATE 527 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Soucek v. Banham 503 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Soucek v. Banham 503 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Odegard v. Finne 500 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Odegard v. Finne 500 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Co., (summary judgment upheld where plaintiff failed to produce evidence linking alleged disorders to alleged intentional conduct), pet.
Dornfeld v. Oberg 491 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Dornfeld v. Oberg 491 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Strauss v. Thorne 490 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Strauss v. Thorne 490 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Lindgren v. Harmon Glass Co. 489 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Lindgren v. Harmon Glass Co. 489 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Bohdan v. Alltool Mfg., Co., pet.
M.H. v. Caritas Family Services 475 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
M.H. v. Caritas Family Services 475 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Markgraf v. Douglas Corp. 468 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Markgraf v. Douglas Corp. 468 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Co., (“Appellant presented no facts showing he was in a zone of danger of physical impact and reasonably feared for his own safety.
Lee v. Metropolitan Airport Commission 428 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Lee v. Metropolitan Airport Commission 428 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
-08 (Minn.Ct.App.1987), pet.