DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Koslowski v. Thayer, 68 N.W. 973.

18 citing documents.

  • Ginsberg v. Williams 135 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 1965
    State v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co. 66 Minn. 217, 219 , .
  • Boyle v. Boileau 219 N.W. 866 Minn. 1928
    State v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co. 66 Minn. 217 , ; Emerson v. Pacific C. & N. P. Co. 92 Minn. 523 , ; Leonard v. Rosendahl, 133 Minn. 320 , .
  • Beard v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 158 N.W. 815 Minn. 1916
  • Beard v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 158 N.W. 815 Minn. 1916
    Koslowski v. Thayer, 66 Minn. 150 , .
  • Leonard v. Rosendahl 158 N.W. 419 Minn. 1916
    State v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co. 66 Minn. 217 , ; Emerson v. Pacific Coast & N. P. Co. 92 Minn. 523 , ; Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L.R.A.
  • O'Neil v. Potts 153 N.W. 856 Minn. 1915
    State v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co. 66 Minn. 217 , ; Hall v. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins.
  • McColl v. Cameron 148 N.W. 108 Minn. 1914
  • McColl v. Cameron 148 N.W. 108 Minn. 1914
    Co. 47 Minn. 384 , ; Koslowski v. Thayer, 66 Minn. 150 , ; Moores v. Northern Pacific Ry.
  • Strasser v. Stabeck 127 N.W. 384 Minn. 1910
    State v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co., 66 Minn. 217 , ; Hall v. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins.
  • Hoover v. Nichols-Chisholm Lumber Co. 121 N.W. 416 Minn. 1909
  • Hoover v. Nichols-Chisholm Lumber Co. 121 N.W. 416 Minn. 1909
    Even if the tongs were defective, the plaintiff failed to show that such defect was the proximate cause of the injury which he suffered, Koslowski v. Thayer, 66 Minn. 150 , .
  • Lehman v. Dwyer Plumbing & Heating Co. 116 N.W. 352 Minn. 1908
  • Lehman v. Dwyer Plumbing & Heating Co. 116 N.W. 352 Minn. 1908
    Koslowski v. Thayer, 66 Minn. 150 , ; Minneapolis Sash & Door Co. v. Great Northern Ry.
  • Mohr v. Williams 104 N.W. 12 Minn. 1905
    State v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co., 66 Minn. 217 , .
  • Emerson v. Pacific Coast & Norway Packing Co. 100 N.W. 365 Minn. 1904
    State v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co., 66 Minn. 217 , .
  • Criticized Blume v. Scheer 86 N.W. 446 Minn. 1901
    But in State v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co., 66 Minn. 217 , , this assertion was criticized, and it was said that “The fourth subdivision has reference more particularly to cases in which there is no- rule for estimating the amount of damages, except that found in the discretion of the jury, as where the damages are for personal injury,” and, further, “The Nelson case has neve
  • Gray v. Minnesota Tribune Co. 84 N.W. 113 Minn. 1900
    Paul, 64 Minn. 220 , , was practically overruled in State v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co., 66 Minn. 217 , , in which, referring specially to the Nelson case, the court stated that it has almost universally been held that it is discretionary with the trial court to grant a new trial, on the ground that on the evidence substantial justice has not been done, and an appellate court will interfere only in case of an abuse of d
  • First National Bank v. City of St. Cloud 75 N.W. 1054 Minn. 1898
    Lane v. Dayton, 56 Minn. 90 , ; State v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co., 66 Minn. 217 , .