Supreme Court of Minnesota· 12/6/2001

Louis v. Louis

Citations

636 N.W.2d 314
2001 Minn. LEXIS 765
2001 WL 1553997

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that summary judgment was not appropriate because whether the danger posed by a swimming pool was known or obvious was a fact question
holding that summary judgment was not appropriate because whether the danger posed by a swimming pool was known or obvious was a fact question
deciding that the district court erred in dismissing a negligence action as a matter of law for injuries suffered by an adult in a swimming pool
requiring consideration of \unless\ clause applicability even where known or obvious condition found as a matter of law
requiring consideration of “unless” clause applicability even where known or obvious condition found as a matter of law
remanding to the district court for consideration of whether the harm to the plaintiff “was either [mown to him or one that he reasonably should have been expected to know”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gilbert

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

28 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Louis v. Louis

6 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.