Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite King v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co., 82 N.W. 1113.

26 citing documents.

Boland v. Morrill 148 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 1967
Boland v. Morrill 148 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 1967
Co. 80 Minn. 83 , , 50 L. R. A. 161; Myhra v. Park, 193 Minn. 290 , .
In Re Trust Created by Will of Enger 30 N.W.2d 694 Minn. 1948
Leraan v. Aftenro Society 30 N.W.2d 694 Minn. 1948
Leraan v. Aftenro Society 30 N.W.2d 694 Minn. 1948
Co. 80 Minn. 83 , , 50 L. R. A. 161, 81 A. S. R. 238; Pomeroy, Code Remedies (5 ed. ) § 347, p. 528; 5 Dunnell, Dig.
In Re Trust Created by Will of Enger 30 N.W.2d 694 Minn. 1948
Co. 80 Minn. 83 , 82 N.W.
Hayward v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 4 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 1942
Hayward v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 4 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 1942
Co. 80 Minn. 83 , , 50 L. R. A. 161, 81 A. S. R. 238; Sprague v. Adams, 139 Wash.
Eklund v. Evans 300 N.W. 617 Minn. 1941
Eklund v. Evans 300 N.W. 617 Minn. 1941
Co. 80 Minn. 83 , , 50 L. R. A. 161, 81 A. S. R. 238; Baltimore Steamship Co. v. Phillips, 274 U. S. 316 , 47 S. Ct. 600 , 71 L. ed. 1069.
King v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc. 292 N.W. 198 Minn. 1940
King v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc. 292 N.W. 198 Minn. 1940
Co. 80 Minn. 83 , , 50 L. R. A. 161, 81 A. S. R. 238; Pleins v. Wachenheimer, 108 Minn. 342 , , 133 A. S. R. 451; Carlton County F. Mut.
Pattridge v. Palmer 277 N.W. 18 Minn. 1937
Myhra v. Park 258 N.W. 515 Minn. 1935
Myhra v. Park 258 N.W. 515 Minn. 1935
Co. 80 Minn. 83 , , 50 L. R. A. 161, 81 A. S. R. 238, a question very similar to the present, if not identical, was presented for determination.
Jenkins v. Skelton 192 P. 249 Ariz. 1920
Przyblyski v. Pellowski 169 N.W. 707 Minn. 1918
Przyblyski v. Pellowski 169 N.W. 707 Minn. 1918
Co. 80 Minn. 83 , , 50 L.R.A.
Vineseck v. Great Northern Railway Co. 161 N.W. 494 Minn. 1917
Vineseck v. Great Northern Railway Co. 161 N.W. 494 Minn. 1917
Co. 80 Minn. 83 , , 50 L.R.A.
McKnight v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 149 N.W. 131 Minn. 1914
McKnight v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 149 N.W. 131 Minn. 1914
Co. 80 Minn. 83 , , 50 L.R.A.
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
Co. 80 Minn. 83 , , it is declared: “It has long since become settled in this st ite that a single, entire cause of action cannot be split up into several suits, and that one recovery, although it be in part recovery for the entire injury, is effectual as an estoppel.” And it might be added that, as such an estoppel mus
H. W. Wilson Co. v. A. B. Farnham & Co. 106 N.W. 342 Minn. 1906
H. W. Wilson Co. v. A. B. Farnham & Co. 106 N.W. 342 Minn. 1906
Co., 80 Minn. 83 , , 50 L. R. A. 161, 81 Am.