Larson v. Krostue
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 1962, 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
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Town of Moorcroft v. Lang (Wyo. 1989)
- Torrey v. Pearce (Ariz. 1962)
- Hammersten v. Reiling (Minn. 1962)
- Welsh v. Monson (N.D. 1956)
- Anderson v. Citizens Sav. & Tr. Co. (Cal. 1921)
- City Of Seattle, Apps. v. Keith Holmquist, Et Ano., Resps. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014)
- Holmquist v. King County (Wash. Ct. App. 2014)
- McConiga v. Riches (Wash. Ct. App. 1985)
- McADAM ET UX v. SMITH (Or. 1960)
- Raleigh-Hayward Co. v. Hull (Wash. 1932)
- First National Bank v. Northwestern Trust Co. (Minn. 1930)
- Henry v. Board of Trustees (Ky. Ct. App. 1925)
- Drake v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. (Minn. 1917)
- Hagen v. Mills (Wash. 1913)
- White v. Hewitt (Minn. 1912)
- White v. Coburn (Minn. 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
This appeal is from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint in an action for slander. The complaint contains three causes of action, in the first of which it is alleged that, plaintiff’s store having been burned, the defendant in the presence of a third person said, “ ‘The old man’ (meaning this plaintiff) ‘set the fire’ (meaning the fire which was destroying and had destroyed a large part of the store buildings in said village of Eisher, Minnesota, as aforesaid),” and that the defendant intended to and did charge, and was understood
The language charged is capable of being understood and meaning that the plaintiff was guilty of the crime of arson, and the complaint sufficiently alleges that it was so intended and understood. If this is true, the language was actionable per se, and the demurrer was properly overruled.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.