Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hueston v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co., 79 N.W. 92.

32 citing documents.

Williams v. Township of Lynd 312 N.W.2d 110 Minn. 1981
Williams v. Township of Lynd 312 N.W.2d 110 Minn. 1981
Co., 76 Minn. 251 , 79 N.W.
Baillon v. Carl Bolander & Sons Co. 235 N.W.2d 613 Minn. 1975
Baillon v. Carl Bolander & Sons Co. 235 N.W.2d 613 Minn. 1975
Co. 119 Minn. 251 , Hueston v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. 76 Minn. 251, 255
Lawrenz v. Langford Electric Co. 288 N.W. 727 Minn. 1939
Lawrenz v. Langford Electric Co. 288 N.W. 727 Minn. 1939
Hueston v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co. 76 Minn. 251 , ; Summers v. Midland Co. 167 Minn. 453 , , 46 A. L. E. 816.
Waldron v. Page 253 N.W. 894 Minn. 1934
Waldron v. Page 253 N.W. 894 Minn. 1934
This court in Hueston v. Mississippi & R. R. B. Co. 76 Minn. 251, 255 , , stated: “In its last analysis the measure of plaintiff’s damages Avas the difference between the value of the premises immediately before and immediately after the infliction of the injury.
Summers v. Midland Co. 209 N.W. 323 Minn. 1926
Summers v. Midland Co. 209 N.W. 323 Minn. 1926
Hueston v. M. & R. R. Boom Co. 76 Minn. 251 , .
Plaude v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. 169 N.W. 600 Minn. 1918
Plaude v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. 169 N.W. 600 Minn. 1918
Hueston v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co. 76 Minn. 251 , , and Reynolds v. Great Northern Ry.
Shraiberg v. Hanson 163 N.W. 1032 Minn. 1917
Shraiberg v. Hanson 163 N.W. 1032 Minn. 1917
Hueston v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co. 76 Minn. 251 , .
Wellington v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. 144 N.W. 222 Minn. 1913
Wellington v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. 144 N.W. 222 Minn. 1913
348; Hueston v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co. 76 Minn. 251 , ; Hook v. Northwest Thresher Co. 91 Minn. 482 , ; Kasal v. Hlinka, 118 Minn. 37 , .
Torgerson v. Crookston Lumber Co. 144 N.W. 154 Minn. 1913
Torgerson v. Crookston Lumber Co. 144 N.W. 154 Minn. 1913
See Casey v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co. 108 Minn. 497, 500 , ; Hueston v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co. 76 Minn. 251, 256 , ; Gravel v. Little Falls Imp.
Reynolds v. Great Northern Railway Co. 138 N.W. 30 Minn. 1912
Reynolds v. Great Northern Railway Co. 138 N.W. 30 Minn. 1912
Co. 61 Minn. 449 , ; Hueston v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co. 76 Minn. 251 , , applying the doctrine in an action for the overflowing of lands; 3 Joyce, Damages, § 2134, and ■cases cited; 3 Sedgwick, Damages, § 933, and cases cited; Miller v. Neale, 137 Wis.
Liimatainen v. St. Louis River Dam & Improvement Co. 137 N.W. 1099 Minn. 1912
Liimatainen v. St. Louis River Dam & Improvement Co. 137 N.W. 1099 Minn. 1912
App.) 34 S. W. 165 ; Hueston v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co. 76 Minn. 251 , ; Armstrong v. Chicago, M. & St.
Casey v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. 122 N.W. 376 Minn. 1909
Casey v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. 122 N.W. 376 Minn. 1909
Weaver v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co., 28 Minn. 534 , ; McKenzie v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co., 29 Minn. 288 , ; Hueston v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co., 76 Minn. 251 , ; Bowers v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co., 78 Minn. 398 , , 79 Am.
Funk v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. 121 N.W. 1134 Minn. 1909
Funk v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. 121 N.W. 1134 Minn. 1909
The assignments of error on the subject of the admission of evidence are disposed of by the case of Hueston v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co., 76 Minn. 251 , , and the question of plaintiff’s ownership of the land by Rau v. Minnesota Valley R. Co., 13 Minn. 407 (442).
Mandery v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. 116 N.W. 1027 Minn. 1908
Mandery v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. 116 N.W. 1027 Minn. 1908
A similar objection was considered and decided in the case of Hueston v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co., 76 Minn. 251 , , where the court said: “It is the most common thing in the world, in the trial of actions of this and analogous classes, to ask a witness how much less, in his opinion, the premises were worth after the injury than they were before, and then to particularize by introducing evidence as to the nature and
Osborn v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. 103 N.W. 879 Minn. 1905
Osborn v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. 103 N.W. 879 Minn. 1905
The case, in many of its essential particulars, is like Hueston v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co., 76 Minn. 251 , .
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
Hueston v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co., 76 Minn. 251 , .