Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Voge v. Penney, 77 N.W. 422.

27 citing documents.

Berry v. Goetz 348 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Berry v. Goetz 348 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See Voge v. Penney, 74 Minn. 525 , 77 N.W.
Smith v. County of Ramsey 16 N.W.2d 169 Minn. 1944
Smith v. County of Ramsey 16 N.W.2d 169 Minn. 1944
Co. 77 Minn. 34 , , and Voge v. Penney, 74 Minn. 525 , .
Lee v. Zaske 6 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1942
National Pole & Treating Co. v. Gilkey 233 N.W. 810 Minn. 1930
National Pole & Treating Co. v. Gilkey 233 N.W. 810 Minn. 1930
Ohlson v. Manderfeld, 28 Minn. 390 , ; Voge v. Penney, 74 Minn. 525 , ; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , ; Messenger v. St.
Minneapolis Electric Lamp Co. v. Federal Holding Co. 221 N.W. 645 Minn. 1928
Minneapolis Electric Lamp Co. v. Federal Holding Co. 221 N.W. 645 Minn. 1928
Voge v. Penney, 74 Minn. 525 , ; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , ; Bartroot v. St.
Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 215 N.W. 678 Minn. 1927
Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 215 N.W. 678 Minn. 1927
Ohlson v. Manderfeld, 28 Minn. 390 , ; Voge v. Penney, 74 Minn. 525 , ; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , ; Messenger v. St.
Peoples State Bank of Cannon Falls v. Drake-Ballard Co. 205 N.W. 59 Minn. 1925
Peoples State Bank of Cannon Falls v. Drake-Ballard Co. 205 N.W. 59 Minn. 1925
The evidence sustaining these findings seems to be governed more by the case of Peterson v. Mystic Workers of the World, 141 Minn. 175 , , than by Voge v. Penney, 74 Minn. 525 , .
Petersun v. Mystic Workers of the World 169 N.W. 598 Minn. 1918
Petersun v. Mystic Workers of the World 169 N.W. 598 Minn. 1918
The evidence in plaintiff’s favor is not so inherently weak or improbable, or so opposed by documentary or other proof of convincing cogency that a new trial should be granted under such decisions as Voge v. Penney, 74 Minn. 525 , , and Messenger v. St.
Kling v. Thompson-McDonald Lumber Co. 149 N.W. 947 Minn. 1914
Kling v. Thompson-McDonald Lumber Co. 149 N.W. 947 Minn. 1914
k, the way in which he fell, and the testimony of all the other witnesses, including those called by himself, render the claim that ¡plaintiff was standing in the street, and was there run down, so improbable that, if the jury, by their verdict, necessarily found that the accident happened in that manner, a new trial should be granted under the rule applied in the following cases: Voge v. Penney, 74 Minn. 525 , ; Messenger v. St.
Peterson v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 118 N.W. 1016 Minn. 1908
Peterson v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 118 N.W. 1016 Minn. 1908
Voge v. Penney, 74 Minn. 525 , ; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255, 262 , ; Messenger v. St.
Kipp v. Clinger 106 N.W. 108 Minn. 1906
Kipp v. Clinger 106 N.W. 108 Minn. 1906
Co., 65 Minn. 382 , ; Voge v. Penney, 74 Minn. 525 , ; McCord v. Knowlton, 76 Minn. 391 , .
Spoonick v. Backus-Brooks Co. 94 N.W. 1079 Minn. 1903
Spoonick v. Backus-Brooks Co. 94 N.W. 1079 Minn. 1903
It does not come within the rule laid down in Voge v. Penney, 74 Minn. 525 , .
Messenger v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 79 N.W. 583 Minn. 1899
Messenger v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 79 N.W. 583 Minn. 1899
See Voge v. Penney, 74 Minn. 525 , .
Martin v. Walter Courtney 77 N.W. 813 Minn. 1899
Martin v. Walter Courtney 77 N.W. 813 Minn. 1899
Voge v. Penney, 74 Minn. 525 , .