Lee Loevinger

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit where plaintiff Jeanette Dellwo suffered an eye injury after her fishing line became entangled with the propeller of a boat operated by a 12-year-old defendant, causing the reel to break apart. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant after being instructed on a modified standard of care for children, that liability for negligence extends only to foreseeable consequences, and on contributory negligence. Plaintiffs appealed, contending the instructions on foreseeability and proximate cause as well as contributory negligence were erroneous. The court determined that foreseeability is not the proper test for proximate cause, as a negligent actor is liable for all natural and proximate consequences whether or not they were anticipated, and that minors operating motor vehicles such as boats must be held to an adult standard of care.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a habeas corpus petition filed by Wilber E. Farrington, who was serving a life sentence for a 1939 murder conviction. He claimed his initial arrest was illegal due to lack of a warrant or probable cause and that he was denied a preliminary hearing, arguing this deprived the trial court of jurisdiction and voided his later indictment, trial, and sentence. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of the petition. The court reasoned that jurisdiction over the person can be waived by failure to object timely, unlike subject-matter jurisdiction, and that an unlawful arrest does not bar subsequent prosecution on a proper indictment or invalidate the resulting conviction. Habeas corpus, as a collateral attack, does not review the legality of pre-trial proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a wrongful death suit brought by the estate of a pilot trainee who died in a plane crash shortly after takeoff during a required checkout flight with an instructor employed by the defendant flight service. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, but the trial court granted the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and the plaintiff appealed. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of negligence. The court reasoned that airplane crashes often destroy direct evidence of causation, leaving only speculative inferences, and that without proof of a specific negligent act or invocation of res ipsa loquitur under the facts, liability could not be imposed on the defendant.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case is an appeal from a district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition in which the petitioner challenged the validity of his criminal sentence. The court determined that the sentencing issue had already been resolved against the petitioner in a prior habeas proceeding, making that earlier decision controlling precedent. On the additional claim of inadequate opportunity to consult with counsel after arraignment, the court found that any initial brevity was not prejudicial because the petitioner had five days in jail to confer before changing his plea to guilty. The court affirmed the denial, noting that background factors might warrant consideration by parole authorities but did not affect the legal merits.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an application by a lawyer admitted in 1909 and disbarred in 1935 for reinstatement to the Minnesota bar, filed in 1958. The court considered reports from the state bar's practice of law committee, which recommended denial based on perceived lack of contrition, and from a district court referee, who found the applicant had conducted himself honestly since disbarment, was intellectually and morally qualified at age 73, and recommended approval after hearing witness testimony. The court granted reinstatement, reaffirming that the purpose of attorney discipline is to protect the public rather than punish and that applicants bear a heavy burden to prove good character and fitness, but concluding that the referee's findings and overall record supported readmission.

procedure

This case was a declaratory judgment action brought by a surety company to determine the scope of bonds issued for a real estate broker under Minnesota's licensing statute. The court decided that individuals injured by the broker's fraud could directly enforce the bonds and that the surety's liability under each bond was $10,000. The reasoning was that such bonds are indemnity bonds intended to protect the public, allowing direct suits by claimants, and the statute requires a bond of $2,000 for the broker plus $1,000 per salesman up to a $10,000 maximum, with the full amount available for claims against the broker or salesmen.

business & regulatory