Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Strom v. Montana Central Railway Co., 84 N.W. 46.

34 citing documents.

Marriage of Lutzi v. Lutzi 485 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Lutzi v. Lutzi 485 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Ry., 81 Minn. 346, 349 , 84 N.W.
Marriage of Mathias v. Mathias 365 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Mathias v. Mathias 365 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Saturnini v. Saturnini 110 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 1961
Saturnini v. Saturnini 110 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 1961
Co. 81 Minn. 346, 349 , , 47: “A party is not entitled, as matter of right, to have' a motion involving an issue of fact heard and tried on the oral testimony of witnesses.
Curran v. Nash 29 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 1947
Curran v. Nash 29 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 1947
Bylund v. Carroll 281 N.W. 873 Minn. 1938
Bylund v. Carroll 281 N.W. 873 Minn. 1938
Dahl v. Collette 279 N.W. 561 Minn. 1938
Dahl v. Collette 279 N.W. 561 Minn. 1938
Dahl v. Collette 279 N.W. 561 Minn. 1938
Co. 81 Minn. 346 , ; Archer-Daniels Linseed Co. v. Blue Ridge Despatch, 113 Minn. 367 , ; W. J. Armstrong Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co. 129 Minn. 104 , , L. R. A. 1916E, 232, Ann. Cas.
Dahl v. Collette 279 N.W. 561 Minn. 1938
Co. 81 Minn. 346 , 84 N.W.
In Re Disbarment of G. Halvorson 221 N.W. 907 Minn. 1928
In Re Disbarment of G. Halvorson 221 N.W. 907 Minn. 1928
Co. 81 Minn. 346 , , the statute is construed to apply to the trial of any civil action involving an issue of fact, and also to the trial of any proceeding involving an issue which the parties are entitled as a matter of right to have heard upon oral testimony of witnesses and other evidence as in ordinary trials.
Louis F. Dow Co. v. First National Bank 189 N.W. 653 Minn. 1922
Louis F. Dow Co. v. First National Bank 189 N.W. 653 Minn. 1922
Co. 81 Minn. 346 , , concerning the statute for service upon a foreign corporation which has property within this state, “or the cause of action arose therein,” can have no application, for the clause quoted is not now in our code, and, in any event, jurisdiction depends upon the fact whether or not defendant was doing bus
Walters v. Walters 186 N.W. 693 Minn. 1922
Walters v. Walters 186 N.W. 693 Minn. 1922
The rule is not however one of general application, Strom v. Montana Central R. Co. 81 Minn. 346 , , but would seem an appropriate procedure in a case involving such important considerations as that at bar, which may be classed as an exception to the general rule stated in the case just cited.
Fletcher v. Southern Colonization Co. 181 N.W. 205 Minn. 1921
Fletcher v. Southern Colonization Co. 181 N.W. 205 Minn. 1921
Co. 81 Minn. 346, 350 , , it was said that “If a foreign corporation comes within this state, and enters into contracts or does acts whereby a cause of action accrues to another, it ought to answer therefor in our courts, upon summons being served on any of its officers who may be found in the state.” In the Armstrong case
Atkinson v. United States Operating Co. 152 N.W. 410 Minn. 1915
Atkinson v. United States Operating Co. 152 N.W. 410 Minn. 1915
Co. 81 Minn. 346 , : “If a foreign corporation comes within this state, and enters into contracts or does acts whereby a cause of action accrues to another, it ought to answer therefor in our courts, upon summons being served on any of its officers who may be found in the state.” Defendant relies largely upon Green v. Chic
Kendall v. Orange Judd Co. 136 N.W. 291 Minn. 1912
Kendall v. Orange Judd Co. 136 N.W. 291 Minn. 1912
Co. 81 Minn. 346 , ), we think that a surprisingly clear case was made.
Miller v. Natwick 125 N.W. 1022 Minn. 1910
Miller v. Natwick 125 N.W. 1022 Minn. 1910
Connery v. Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City Railroad 99 N.W. 365 Minn. 1904
Connery v. Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City Railroad 99 N.W. 365 Minn. 1904
State v. King 92 N.W. 965 Minn. 1903
State v. King 92 N.W. 965 Minn. 1903
Plano Manufacturing Co. v. Kaufert 89 N.W. 1124 Minn. 1902
Plano Manufacturing Co. v. Kaufert 89 N.W. 1124 Minn. 1902