Hammerschmidt v. Moore
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
KELLY, Justice.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court granting a third-party defendant’s motion for. dismissal of a third-party complaint. The question for decision is whether the notice requirements of Minn.St. 340.951, which requires that writ*80ten notice be given the licensee of any licensed liquor establishment within 120 days after the injury, is a condition precedent to a third-party action for contribution. We hold that it is not and reverse the judgment of the district court.
This action arose out of a two-car collision which occurred in the early morning hours of March…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Pierringer v. HogerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- Markey v. SkogNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1974
- White v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1965
- American Automobile Insurance v. MollingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1953
- Gustafson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1952
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Calder v. City of CrystalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Wegan v. Village of LexingtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- Beaver v. PelettOregon Supreme Court · 1985
- Jones v. FisherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe v. BlakeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.