Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Gilbert v. City of Tracy, 132 N.W. 752.

34 citing documents.

Jennison v. Priem 278 N.W. 517 Minn. 1938
Jennison v. Priem 278 N.W. 517 Minn. 1938
As the court appropriately said ( 115 Minn. 133 , ) : “If the intention was to eliminate the proviso as to payment for plowing in case a demand was made for a surrender of the farm before the expiration of the term, the obvious and certain way to express such intention would have been to have continued the ink line through the whole of the condition.” The defense her
Theisen v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 274 N.W. 617 Minn. 1937
Theisen v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 274 N.W. 617 Minn. 1937
Gilbert v. City of Tracy, 115 Minn. 443 , .
Szyperski v. Swift Company 269 N.W. 401 Minn. 1936
Szyperski v. Swift Company 269 N.W. 401 Minn. 1936
The rule guiding us and frequently reiterated by this court may well be summarized in the language of the late Chief Justice Start in Gilbert v. City of Tracy, 115 Minn. 443, 444 , : “Where a person is killed by the negligence of another, a very strong presumption arises that the deceased exercised due care to save himself from personal injury or death.
Landy v. Olson & Serley Sash & Door Co. 214 N.W. 659 Minn. 1927
Landy v. Olson & Serley Sash & Door Co. 214 N.W. 659 Minn. 1927
Fitzgerald v. Armour & Co. 129 Minn. 81 , ; Gilbert v. City of Tracy, 115 Minn. 443 , ; Anderson v. D. & I. R. R. Co. 116 Minn. 346 , ; LaPray v. Lavoris Chemical Co. 117 Minn. 152 , ; Falk v. C. & N. W. Ry.
Aubin v. Duluth Street Railway Co. 211 N.W. 580 Minn. 1926
Aubin v. Duluth Street Railway Co. 211 N.W. 580 Minn. 1926
Co. 111 Minn. 509 , ; Gilbert v. City of Tracy, 115 Minn. 443 , ; Green v. G. N. Ry.
Montcalm v. Great Northern Railway Co. 208 N.W. 539 Minn. 1926
Montcalm v. Great Northern Railway Co. 208 N.W. 539 Minn. 1926
Co. 113 Minn. 126 , ; Gilbert v. City of Tracy, 115 Minn. 443 , .
Fink v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 203 N.W. 47 Minn. 1925
Fink v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 203 N.W. 47 Minn. 1925
Co. 133 Minn. 41 , ; Gilbert v. City of Tracy, 115 Minn. 443 , .
State ex rel. Oliver Iron Mining Co. v. District Court 164 N.W. 582 Minn. 1917
State ex rel. Oliver Iron Mining Co. v. District Court 164 N.W. 582 Minn. 1917
Co. 115 Minn. 232 , ; Gilbert v. City of Tracy, 115 Minn. 443 , ; Milwaukee W. Fuel Co. v. Industrial Com.
Falk v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. 157 N.W. 904 Minn. 1916
Falk v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. 157 N.W. 904 Minn. 1916
Gilbert v. City of Tracy, 115 Minn. 443 , ; Knudson v. Great *45 Northern Ry.
Fitzgerald v. Armour & Co. 151 N.W. 539 Minn. 1915
Fitzgerald v. Armour & Co. 151 N.W. 539 Minn. 1915
Gilbert v. City of Tracy, 115 Minn. 443 , .
Hutchins v. Sleepy Eye Telephone Co. 147 N.W. 279 Minn. 1914
Hutchins v. Sleepy Eye Telephone Co. 147 N.W. 279 Minn. 1914
In Gilbert v. City of Tracy, 115 Minn. 443 , , Chief Justice Start expressed the thought in this way: “The presumption is based upon a law of nature, the universal and insistent instinct of self-preservation.
Johnson v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 145 N.W. 628 Minn. 1914
Johnson v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 145 N.W. 628 Minn. 1914
130; Snyder v. Waldorf Box Board Co. 110 Minn. 40 , ; Gilbert v. City of Tracy, 115 Minn. 443 , .
Green v. Great Northern Railway Co. 143 N.W. 722 Minn. 1913
Green v. Great Northern Railway Co. 143 N.W. 722 Minn. 1913
Co. 114 Minn. 244 , ; Gilbert v. City of Tracy, 115 Minn. 443 , , Anderson v. Duluth & Iron Range R. Co. 116 Minn. 346 , .
Carver v. Luverne Brick & Tile Co. 141 N.W. 488 Minn. 1913
Carver v. Luverne Brick & Tile Co. 141 N.W. 488 Minn. 1913
Co. 114 Minn. 244 , ; Gilbert v. City of Tracy, 115 Minn. 443 , ; and La Pray v. Lavoris Chemical Co. 117 Minn. 152 , , which is a rule to guide the court in determining whether or not as a matter of law contributory negligence appears.
Falconer v. Sherwood 136 N.W. 1039 Minn. 1912
Falconer v. Sherwood 136 N.W. 1039 Minn. 1912
See also Gilbert v. City of Tracy, 115 Minn. 443 , ; Glockner v. Hardwood Mnfg.
La Pray v. Lavoris Chemical Co. 134 N.W. 313 Minn. 1912
La Pray v. Lavoris Chemical Co. 134 N.W. 313 Minn. 1912
Co. 114 Minn. 244 , ; Gilbert v. City of Tracy, 115 Minn. 443 , .
Anderson v. Duluth & Iron Range Railroad 133 N.W. 805 Minn. 1911
Anderson v. Duluth & Iron Range Railroad 133 N.W. 805 Minn. 1911
Gilbert v. City of Tracy, 115 Minn. 443 , .