Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Osborne v. McMasters, 41 N.W. 543.

67 citing documents.

Odenthal v. Minnesota Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists 649 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2002
Odenthal v. Minnesota Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists 649 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2002
Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103, 105 , 41 N.W.
Buck v. Freeman 619 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Buck v. Freeman 619 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103, 104-05 , 41 N.W.
Summers v. R & D AGENCY, INC. 593 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Summers v. R & D AGENCY, INC. 593 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103, 104 , 41 N.W.
Steffey v. Soo Line Railroad 498 N.W.2d 304 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Steffey v. Soo Line Railroad 498 N.W.2d 304 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103, 105 , 41 N.W.
Seim Ex Rel. Seim v. Garavalia 306 N.W.2d 806 Minn. 1981
Seim Ex Rel. Seim v. Garavalia 306 N.W.2d 806 Minn. 1981
See Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103 , 41 N.W.
Hage v. Stade 304 N.W.2d 283 Minn. 1981
Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc. 260 N.W.2d 548 Minn. 1977
Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc. 260 N.W.2d 548 Minn. 1977
Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103 , 41 N.W.
Janssen v. Neal 256 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1977
Janssen v. Neal 256 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1977
See, e. g., Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103, 105 , 41 N.W.
Scott v. Independent School District No. 709 256 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 1977
Scott v. Independent School District No. 709 256 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 1977
As explained by Mr. Justice Mitchell in the leading decision of Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103, 105 , 41 N.W.
Kronzer v. First Nat. Bank of Minneapolis 235 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1975
Kronzer v. First Nat. Bank of Minneapolis 235 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1975
Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103
Pigman v. Nott 233 N.W.2d 287 Minn. 1975
Pigman v. Nott 233 N.W.2d 287 Minn. 1975
Where the doctrine of negligence per se is applicable, violation of the statute constitutes conclusive evidence of negligence, Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103 , unless excusable or justifiable under the circumstances of the case.
Hall v. Mertz 480 P.2d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Jacobs v. Draper 142 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 1966
Jacobs v. Draper 142 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 1966
In Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103, 105 , , this court said: “* * * Negligence is the breach of legal duty.
Martinson v. Scherbel 129 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1964
Martinson v. Scherbel 129 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1964
Co. 226 Minn. 27, 33 , 31 N. W. (2d) 905, 908 ; Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , ; Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193, 196 , ; Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103, 105 , ; Swoboda v. Brown, 129 Ohio St.
McDonald v. Western Union Telegraph Co., Inc. 84 N.W.2d 630 Minn. 1957
McDonald v. Western Union Telegraph Co., Inc. 84 N.W.2d 630 Minn. 1957
The city cites Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103 , , together with other cases upon which it relies, to support its contention that Western Union is obligated to indemnify the city to the same extent as if Western Union had been obligated by contract to indemnify the city.
Lynghaug v. Payte 76 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1956
Lynghaug v. Payte 76 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1956
13 In Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103, 105 , , 12 A. S. R. 698, 699, speaking through Mr. Justice Mitchell, we said: “* * * Negligence is the breach of legal duty.
Lavalle Ex Rel. Lavalle v. Kaupp 61 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 1953
Lavalle Ex Rel. Lavalle v. Kaupp 61 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 1953
6 See, Hutchinson v. Cotton, 236 Minn. 366 , 53 N. W. (2d) 27 , 31 A. L. R. (2d) 1465; Dart v. Pure Oil Co. 223 Minn. 526 , 27 N. W. (2d) 555 , 171 A. L. R. 885; Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103 , .
Hutchinson v. Cotton 53 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1952
Hutchinson v. Cotton 53 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1952
5 Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103 , .
Standafer v. First National Bank 52 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 1952
Standafer v. First National Bank 52 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 1952
Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103 , .
Barrett v. Nash Finch Co. 36 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 1949
Barrett v. Nash Finch Co. 36 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 1949
As said in Dart v. Pure Oil Co. 223 Minn. 526, 533 , 27 N. W. (2d) 555, 559 , 171 A. L. R. 885, quoting from Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103, 105 , , 12 A. S. R. 698: *160 “* * * Negligence is the breach of legal duty.
Peterson v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 31 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1948
Peterson v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 31 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1948
This distinction was clearly explained by Mr. Justice Mitchell in the early case of Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103, 105 , , 12 A. S. R. 698, when he said: an n * Negligence is the breach of legal duty.
Dart v. Pure Oil Co. 27 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1947
Dart v. Pure Oil Co. 27 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1947
The leading case is Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103, 105 , , 12 A. S. R. 698, where Mr. Justice Mitchell said with respect to a statute requiring “Poison” to be labeled: “* * * Negligence is the breach of legal duty.
Hahn v. Diamond Iron Works, Inc. 20 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 1945
Hahn v. Diamond Iron Works, Inc. 20 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 1945
Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103 , , 12 A. S. R. 698.
Middaugh v. Waseca Canning Co. 281 N.W. 818 Minn. 1938
Middaugh v. Waseca Canning Co. 281 N.W. 818 Minn. 1938
In either case the failure to perform the duty constitutes negligence, and renders the party liable for injuries resulting from it.” Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103, 105 , , 12 A. S. R. 698.
Kaiser v. Butchart 274 N.W. 680 Minn. 1937
Kaiser v. Butchart 274 N.W. 680 Minn. 1937
R. 47; Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103 , , 12 A. S. R. 698; Perry v. Tozer, 90 Minn. 431 , , 101 A. S. R. 416; Anderson v. Settergren, 100 Minn. 294 , ; Schaar v. Conforth, 128 Minn. 460 , ; Frederick V. McRae, 157 Minn. 366 , .
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Compton 8 P.2d 249 Ariz. 1932
Mechler v. McMahon 239 N.W. 605 Minn. 1931