Engstrom v. City of Minneapolis
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1927, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Szroka v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. (Minn. 1927)
- Collins v. City of Spokane (Wash. 1911)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Tbe only’question raised by this appeal was disposed of in Bausher v. City of St. Paul, 72 Minn. 539, 75 N. W. 745,'in which it was held that Laws 1897, c. 248, requiring notice to cities and villages of an injury for which damages were claimed, is mandatory, and that such notice is a condition precedent to the right to maintain an action to recover such damages, áee also Doyle v. City of Duluth, 74 Minn. 157, 76 N. W. 1029. We have no occasion to add to what was said in these cases in support of the conclusion reached. They were properly determined, in our opinion.
Because of some statements of appellant’s counsel in his brief, it is well enough to say that we have not held that special charter provisions providing for notice of injuries have been repealed by chapter 248. The question has never been before us, and is not in this case.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.