Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Alholm v. Wilt, 394 N.W.2d 488.

168 citing documents.

Erica Robinson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See, e.g., Glay, d at 643-45 (nightclub patron murdered by three other patrons); Henson v. Uptown Drink, LLC, - 89 (Minn. 2019) (off- duty employee fatally injured while assisting with ejection of aggressive patron); (fight between two bar patrons); (bar patron assaulted 9 The second exception to the general rule may arise if “‘the defendant’s own conduct creates a foreseeable risk of injury to a foreseeable plaintiff.’” Fenrich, d at 202 (quoting Domagala, d at 23).
Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc., … Minn. 2026
Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc., … Minn. 2026
‘to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to protect their patrons from injury’ ” ()).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Michelle Friesen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Bar owners owe their patrons a duty to “exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to protect their patrons from injury.”
Henson v. Uptown Drink, LLC 922 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2019
Henson v. Uptown Drink, LLC 922 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2019
Alholm v. Wilt , , 490 (Minn. 1986) ; see also, e.g. , Swanson v. Dugout, Inc. , 256 Minn. 371 , , 215 (1959) (explaining the duty of an "operator of an establishment where beer and liquor are sold"); Priewe v. Bartz , 249 Minn. 488 , , 119 (1957) (expressing "no doubt" that a tavern operator "owed a duty t
Fenrich v. Blake Sch. 920 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The district court is afforded “consid erable latitude” when selecting language in 4 jury instructions and when “determining the propriety of a specific instruction.”
Fenrich v. Blake School 901 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Fenrich v. Blake School 901 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
at 27 ( , 491 n.5 (Minn. 1986)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A district court is allowed “considerable latitude” in selecting language in the jury instructions and in “determining the propriety of a specific instruction.” (quotation omitted).
Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc. 898 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
James F. Edgar, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The district court granted summary judgment for Moose Lodge after it determined “as a matter of law that [Moose Lodge] was not on notice by an act or threat that [ Edgar’s 4 assailant] had vicious or dangerous propensities.” Bar owners owe their patrons a duty to “exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to protect their patrons from injury.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The district court is afforded “considerable latitude” when selecting language in jury instructions and when “determining the propriety of a specific instruction.”
Steven Lynn Oppel v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Steven Lynn Oppel v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jane Doe 175, a minor, by her mother and natural guardian, Mother Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School … 873 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alexander Kenton Edmondson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alexander Kenton Edmondson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
y, appellant seeks a new trial on the ground that the jury instruction relieved the state of proving that appellant entered a building “with the intent to commit a crime” or committed a crime “while in the building.” The district court is allowed “considerable latitude” in selecting language in the jury instructions and in “determining the propriety of a specific instruction.” (citations omitted).
Franklin C. Olson v. Rustic Bar, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Franklin C. Olson v. Rustic Bar, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
B. Innkeeper Liability Bar owners owe their patrons a duty to “exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to protect their patrons from injury.”
Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
District courts “likewise possess broad latitude in determining the propriety of a specific instruction.”
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
*27 Foreseeability of injury is a threshold issue related to duty that is ordinarily “properly decided by the court prior to submitting the case to the jury.” , 491 n. 5 (Minn.1986).
Ram Mutual Insurance Co. v. Meyer 768 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Ram Mutual Insurance Co. v. Meyer 768 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Stewart v. Koenig 767 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Stewart v. Koenig 767 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Although we generally review jury instructions for an abuse of discretion, we will reverse and remand for a new trial when a jury instruction conveys “an erroneous understanding of controlling principles of law.” See Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1, 5
Lake Superior Center Authority v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc. 715 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Lake Superior Center Authority v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc. 715 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Rush v. Jostock 710 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Rush v. Jostock 710 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Bolander v. Bolander 703 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Bolander v. Bolander 703 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Johnson 699 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Johnson 699 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Martinez 694 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Martinez 694 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In Re the Welfare of T.C.J. 689 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Re the Welfare of T.C.J. 689 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(specifying that charge taken in its entirety should correctly state the law and not assume existence of facts in controversy).
State v. Heath 685 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Heath 685 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Heine v. Simon 674 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Heine v. Simon 674 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Taney v. Independent School District No. 624 673 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Taney v. Independent School District No. 624 673 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 2004