Legal Opinion
Dayton Hudson Corp. v. Johnson
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided February 28, 1995No. C1-94-1961PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LANSING, Judge.
A department store seeks to file a petition for a restraining order under Minn.Stat. § 609.748. The district court ruled that a corporation does not fit the statutory definition of a person entitled to a restraining order. We hold that a corporation can be considered a person under the statute and reverse.
FACTS
The Dayton Hudson Corporation filed a petition under Minn.Stat. § 609.748 for a restraining order against Artie Johnson. The petition alleged twelve separate incidents in which Johnson kicked, hit, and severely bit several of the department store’s loss prevention…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State v. ZacherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
- Dawley v. ThisiusSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
- Magnusson v. AMERICAN ALLIED INSURANCE COMPANYSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1971
- CNA Financial Corp. v. Local 743 of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of AmericaDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1981
- In Re Trust Created by PhillipsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Summers v. R & D AGENCY, INC.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
- Phone Recovery Services, LLC v. Qwest Corp.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017
- Summers v. R & D AGENCY, INC.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999