Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Robertson v. Burton, 92 N.W. 538.

31 citing documents.

Donald v. Moses 94 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1959
Donald v. Moses 94 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1959
See, Robertson v. Burton, 88 Minn. 151 , ; Sassen v. Haegle, 125 Minn. 441 , , 52 L.R.A.
Adelmann v. Elk River Lumber Co. 65 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1954
Adelmann v. Elk River Lumber Co. 65 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1954
See, Robertson v. Burton, 88 Minn. 151 , ; Sassen v. Haegle, 125 Minn. 441 , ; Federal Oil Co. v. Peoples Oil Co. 179 Minn. 467 , ; 6 Dunnell, Dig.
MacIllravie v. St. Barnabas Hospital 43 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 1950
MacIllravie v. St. Barnabas Hospital 43 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 1950
2 See, Applebee v. Perry, 87 Minn. 242 , ; Robertson v. Burton, 88 Minn. 151 , ; Sassen v. Haegle, 125 Minn. 441 , 147 * L. R. A. (N. S.) 1176; Wilcox Trux, Inc. v. Rosenberger, 156 Minn. 487 , ; Dehen v. Berning, 198 Minn. 522 , ; Greene v. Mathiowetz, 212 Minn. 171 , 3 N. W. (2d) 97 ; State v. Siebke, 216 Minn. 181 , 12 N. W. (2d) 186
State v. Soltau 2 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 1942
State v. Soltau 2 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 1942
Robertson v. Burton, 88 Minn. 151 , .
Klaman v. Hitchcock 231 N.W. 716 Minn. 1930
Klaman v. Hitchcock 231 N.W. 716 Minn. 1930
Robertson v. Burton, 88 Minn. 151 , , is such a case.
Federal Oil Co. v. Peoples Oil Co. 229 N.W. 575 Minn. 1930
Federal Oil Co. v. Peoples Oil Co. 229 N.W. 575 Minn. 1930
If there had been any evidence warranting the submission of the estoppel or waiver pleaded, it would perhaps have been reversible error not to have submitted it notwithstanding a failure to call the court’s attention to such omission, under the decision of Robertson v. Burton, 88 Minn. 151 , .
Minneapolis League of Catholic Women v. Schafhausen 202 N.W. 705 Minn. 1925
Minneapolis League of Catholic Women v. Schafhausen 202 N.W. 705 Minn. 1925
Robertson v. Burton, 88 Minn. 151 , .
Murphy v. Collins 193 N.W. 468 Minn. 1923
Murphy v. Collins 193 N.W. 468 Minn. 1923
Robertson v. Burton, 88 Minn. 151 , , cited in support of tbe point, as limited in Ellington v. Great Northern Ry.
Esterly-Hoppin Co. v. Burns 159 N.W. 1069 Minn. 1916
Esterly-Hoppin Co. v. Burns 159 N.W. 1069 Minn. 1916
But exception need not be taken at the time to an instruction which virtually withdraws from the jury a question in issue (Robertson v. Burton, 88 Minn. 151 , ); nor to an erroneous instruction on a “controlling proposition of law.” Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .
Likum v. Porter 154 N.W. 1070 Minn. 1915
Likum v. Porter 154 N.W. 1070 Minn. 1915
The court has declined to extend the rule applied in Robertson v. Burton, 88 Minn. 151 , (Beardmore v. Barton, 108 Minn. 28 , ), even in criminal prosecutions.
Sassen v. Haegle 147 N.W. 445 Minn. 1914
Sassen v. Haegle 147 N.W. 445 Minn. 1914
Kincaid v. Jungkunz, 109 Minn. 400 , ; Robertson v. Benton, 88 Minn. 151 , ; Melges v. Duluth Brewing & Malting Co. 118 Minn. 139 , ; State v. Halverson, 103 Minn. 265 , , 14 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Farris v. Koplau 129 N.W. 770 Minn. 1911
Farris v. Koplau 129 N.W. 770 Minn. 1911
The case of Robertson v. Burton, 88 Minn. 151 , , has been limited to the special facts of that case, and has not been extended.
Beardmore v. Barton 121 N.W. 228 Minn. 1909
Beardmore v. Barton 121 N.W. 228 Minn. 1909
As intimated by the chief justice in the case just cited, the rule applied in Robertson v. Burton, 88 Minn. 151 , , is not to be extended.
Bailey v. Grand Forks Lumber Co. 119 N.W. 786 Minn. 1909
Bailey v. Grand Forks Lumber Co. 119 N.W. 786 Minn. 1909
Robertson v. Burton, 88 Minn. 151 , .
Brown v. Musser-Sauntry Land, Logging & Manufacturing Co. 116 N.W. 218 Minn. 1908
Ellington v. Great Northern Railway Co. 100 N.W. 218 Minn. 1904
Ellington v. Great Northern Railway Co. 100 N.W. 218 Minn. 1904
*475 The case of Robertson v. Burton, 88 Minn. 151 , , is not here in point, nor is it inconsistent with the rule stated.