Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Jungblum v. Minneapolis, New Ulm & Southwestern Railroad, 72 N.W. 971.

38 citing documents.

Kallevig v. Holmgren 197 N.W.2d 714 Minn. 1972
Kallevig v. Holmgren 197 N.W.2d 714 Minn. 1972
Co. 80 Minn. 9 , Welsch v. The Elk River Power & Light Co. 157 Minn. 451 , Larson v. Lammers, 81 Minn. 239 , Jungblum v. Minneapolis N. U. & S. W. R. Co. 70 Minn. 153
Collins v. Wickland 88 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1958
Collins v. Wickland 88 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1958
Co. 129 Minn. 113 , ; Jungblum v. Minneapolis, N. U. & S. W. R. Co. 70 Minn. 153 , ; McClure v. City of Red Wing, supra.
Poynter v. County of Otter Tail 25 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1947
Poynter v. County of Otter Tail 25 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1947
In Jungblum v. Minneapolis, New Ulm & S. W. R. Co. 70 Minn. 153, 158 , , where a release very similar in terms was there the subject of controversy, this court said: “If this deed is to be construed as exempting the defendant from liability for a negligent construction of the road, it also exempts it from liability for killing the plaintiff’s stock or burning his
State, by Youngquist v. Hall 261 N.W. 874 Minn. 1935
State, by Youngquist v. Hall 261 N.W. 874 Minn. 1935
Under these circumstances, the rule stated in Jungblum v. M. N. U. & S. W. R. Co. 70 Minn. 153 , seems appropriate : “The plaintiff’s land was and is flooded by the negligent construction of the defendant’s roadbed across a natural channel for surface water, without a culvert therein to let such water pass off in its accustomed course.
Van Wilgen v. Albert Lea Farms Co. 223 N.W. 301 Minn. 1929
Van Wilgen v. Albert Lea Farms Co. 223 N.W. 301 Minn. 1929
Jungblum v. M. N. U. & S. W. R. Co. 70 Minn. 153 , ; Town of King v. Brekke, 151 Minn. 474 , ; Eiken v. M. & M. R. Co. 151 Minn. 99 , .
Lynch v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 219 N.W. 459 Minn. 1928
Lynch v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 219 N.W. 459 Minn. 1928
Co. 38 Minn. 212 , , 8 A. S. R. 668; Jungblum v. M. N. U. & S. W. R. Co. 70 Minn. 153 , ; Burnett v. G. N. Ry.
Welsch v. Elk River Power & Light Co. 196 N.W. 649 Minn. 1924
Welsch v. Elk River Power & Light Co. 196 N.W. 649 Minn. 1924
Co. 70 Minn. 153 , ; Fossum v. Chicago, M. & St.
Eiken v. Minnesota & Manitoba Railroad 186 N.W. 226 Minn. 1922
Eiken v. Minnesota & Manitoba Railroad 186 N.W. 226 Minn. 1922
Co. 70 Minn. 153 , ; Peterson v. Northern Pacific Ry.
Meisch v. Safranski 179 N.W. 685 Minn. 1920
Meisch v. Safranski 179 N.W. 685 Minn. 1920
Jungblum v. Minneapolis N. U. & S. W. R. Co. 70 Minn. 153 , ; Larson v. Lammers, 81 Minn. 239 , , and cases cited.
Peterson v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 156 N.W. 121 Minn. 1916
Peterson v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 156 N.W. 121 Minn. 1916
Jungblum v. Minneapolis N. U. & S. W. R. Co. 70 Minn. 153 , .
Skinner v. Great Northern Railway Co. 151 N.W. 968 Minn. 1915
Skinner v. Great Northern Railway Co. 151 N.W. 968 Minn. 1915
Co. 80 Minn. 9 , ; Jungblum v. Minneapolis, N. U. & S. W. R. Co. 70 Minn. 153 , ; Byrne v. Minneapolis & St.
Worden v. Bielenberg 138 N.W. 314 Minn. 1912
Worden v. Bielenberg 138 N.W. 314 Minn. 1912
The injury involved in Aldrich v. Wetmore, 56 Minn. 20 , , and Jungblum v. Minneapolis, N. W. & S. W. R. Co. 70 Minn. 160 , , was continuing in character, and one that could be abated and discontinued .at any time.
Evans v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 134 N.W. 294 Minn. 1912
Distinguished Evans v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 134 N.W. 294 Minn. 1912
Co. 70 Minn. 153 , , for reasons stated in that opinion, is clearly distinguishable.
Howard v. Illinois Central Railroad 130 N.W. 946 Minn. 1911
Howard v. Illinois Central Railroad 130 N.W. 946 Minn. 1911
Jungblum v. Minneapolis, N. N. & S. W. R. Co., 70 Minn. 153 , .
Ginter v. Rector of St. Mark's Church 103 N.W. 738 Minn. 1905
Ginter v. Rector of St. Mark's Church 103 N.W. 738 Minn. 1905
Co., 70 Minn. 153 , ; and Burnett v. Great Northern Ry.
Larson v. Lammers 83 N.W. 981 Minn. 1900
Larson v. Lammers 83 N.W. 981 Minn. 1900
Co., 61 Minn. 449 , ; Jungblum v. Minneapolis, N. U. & S. W. R. Co., 70 Minn. 153 , ; Burnett v. Great Northern Ry.
Fossum v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 82 N.W. 979 Minn. 1900
Fossum v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 82 N.W. 979 Minn. 1900
Jungblum v. Minneapolis, N. U. & S. W. R. Co., 70 Minn. 153 , .
Bowers v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. 81 N.W. 208 Minn. 1899
Bowers v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. 81 N.W. 208 Minn. 1899
See also Jungblum v. Minneapolis, N. U. & S. W. R. Co., 70 Minn. 160 , .
Oftelie v. Town of Hammond 80 N.W. 1123 Minn. 1899
Oftelie v. Town of Hammond 80 N.W. 1123 Minn. 1899
See Gilfillan v. Schmidt, 64 Minn. 29 , ; Jungblum v. Minneapolis, N. U. & S. W. R. Co., 70 Minn. 153, 157 , ; Burnett v. Great Northern Ry.