Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Ascheman v. Village of Hancock

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 20, 1977No. 46918PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TODD, Justice.

The village of Hancock appeals from the dismissal of its third-party complaint against Floyd Ascheman for contribution. We affirm.

Floyd Ascheman (Floyd) consumed intoxicating beverages at a municipal bar in the village of Hancock. Shortly after Floyd departed from the bar he suffered injuries when the automobile he was operating was involved in a one-car accident. Floyd’s wife and daughter commenced an action against the village of Hancock asking to recover damages for the loss of their means of support under the Civil Damage Act, Minn.St. 340.95. In support of their complaint,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Silesky Ex Rel. Silesky v. KelmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
  2. Beaudette v. FranaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
  3. Ross v. RossSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1972
  4. Spitzack v. SchumacherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
  5. Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Hart v. Cessna Aircraft Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  2. Jones v. FisherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
  3. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe v. BlakeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
  4. Conde v. City of Spring Lake ParkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  5. Pautz v. Cal-Ros, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1983

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API