DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Fake v. Addicks, 47 N.W. 450.

30 citing documents.

  • Engquist v. Loyas 803 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2011
  • Engquist v. Loyas 803 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2011
    See Fake v. Addicks, 45 Minn. 37, 38 , 47 N.W.
  • Engquist Ex Rel. Engquist v. Loyas 787 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • Engquist Ex Rel. Engquist v. Loyas 787 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    The Bailey court distinguished the facts from those of Fake v. Addicks, 45 Minn. 37 , 47 N.W.
  • Grams v. Howard's O.K. Hardware Co. 446 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Grams v. Howard's O.K. Hardware Co. 446 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    Bailey, d at 787 (citing Fake v. Addicks, 45 Minn. 37 , 47 N.W.
  • Bailey Ex Rel. Bailey v. Morris 323 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1982
  • Bailey Ex Rel. Bailey v. Morris 323 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1982
    In Fake v. Addicks, 45 Minn. 37 , 47 N.W.
  • Judd v. Zupon 209 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1973
  • Judd v. Zupon 209 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1973
    Fake v. Addicks, 45 Minn. 37, 38 , Cuney v. Campbell, 76 Minn. 59 , Clark v. Brings, 284 Minn. 73 , Matson v. Kivimaki, 294 Minn. 140
  • Matson v. Kivimaki 200 N.W.2d 164 Minn. 1972
  • Matson v. Kivimaki 200 N.W.2d 164 Minn. 1972
    On the other hand, if the animal, to the knowledge of the owner, is vicious, he must keep it safely or respond in damages for injuries resulting from a display of its known propensities; and * * * it is often held that the liability thus imposed is in no way dependent upon the existence of negligence, although there is also authority to the contrary.” Our court in Fake v. Addicks, 45 Minn. 37, 38 , set forth the general common-law requirements for recovery as follows: “The gravamen of the action
  • Clark v. Brings 169 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1969
  • Clark v. Brings 169 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1969
    E. g., Fake v. Addicks, 45 Minn. 37 , ; Cuney v. Campbell, 76 Minn. 59 , ; Rowe v. Ehrmanntraut, 92 Minn. 17 , ; Maynard v. Keough, 145 Minn. 26 , *76 ; Lavalle v. Kaupp, 240 Minn. 360 , 61 N. W. (2d) 228 , 40 A. L. R. (2d) 539; Anderson v. Anderson, supra.
  • Anderson v. Anderson 107 N.W.2d 647 Minn. 1961
  • Anderson v. Anderson 107 N.W.2d 647 Minn. 1961
    In such a case it cannot be said, in a legal sense, that the keeping of the animal, which is the gravamen of the offense, produced the injury.” We have at least inferentially recognized the validity of this rule in Fake v. Addicks, 45 Minn. 37 , , 22 A. S. R. 716, where we quote, with apparent approval, the above statement from Muller v. McKesson, supra.
  • Harris v. Breezy Point Lodge, Inc. 56 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 1953
  • Harris v. Breezy Point Lodge, Inc. 56 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 1953
    2 Hagerty v. Radle, 228 Minn. 487 , 37 N. W. (2d) 819 ; Lee v. Seekins, 208 Minn. 546 , ; Cuney v. Campbell, 76 Minn. 59 , ; Fake v. Addicks, 45 Minn. 37 , .
  • Hagerty v. Radle 37 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1949
  • Hagerty v. Radle 37 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1949
    Fake v. Addicks, 45 Minn. 87 , , 22 A. S. R. 716.” See, also, Maynard v. Keough, 145 Minn. 26 , ; Nelson v. American Ry.
  • Lee v. Seekins 294 N.W. 842 Minn. 1940
  • Lee v. Seekins 294 N.W. 842 Minn. 1940
    Fake v. Addicks, 45 Minn. 37 , , 20 A. S. R. 716; Cuney v. Campbell, 76 Minn. 59, 62 , ; Erickson v. Bronson, 81 Minn. 258 , ; Nelson v. Am.
  • Olson v. Pederson 288 N.W. 856 Minn. 1939
  • Olson v. Pederson 288 N.W. 856 Minn. 1939
    The dispute is not Avhether the general rule is that the owner is liable for harm done by his dog, which he has reason to knoAv has dangerous propensities abnormal to its kind to cause harm to others, announced in cases like Maron v. Marciniak, 165 Minn. 156 , , and Fake v. Addicks, 45 Minn. 37 , , 22 A. S. R. 716, but whether the rule has any application at all to the facts of the instant case.
  • Maynard v. Keough 175 N.W. 891 Minn. 1920
  • Maynard v. Keough 175 N.W. 891 Minn. 1920
    Fake v. Addicks, 45 Minn. 37 , .
  • Rowe v. Ehrmanntraut 99 N.W. 211 Minn. 1904
  • Rowe v. Ehrmanntraut 99 N.W. 211 Minn. 1904
    In Fake v. Addicks, 45 Minn. 37 , , it was stated that the gravamen of an action of this character is the neglect of the owner to restrain such animal after notice of its vicious propensity, and that the notice thereof must be such as to put a prudent man on his guard.
  • Cuney v. Campbell 78 N.W. 878 Minn. 1899
  • Cuney v. Campbell 78 N.W. 878 Minn. 1899
    Fake v. Ad-dicks, 45 Minn. 37 , .