Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McDowell v. Village of Preston, 116 N.W. 470.

28 citing documents.

Kochevar v. City of Gilbert 141 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 1966
Distinguished Kochevar v. City of Gilbert 141 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 1966
McDowell v. Village of Preston, 104 Minn. 263 , , 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 190, cited by defendant, is clearly distinguishable and not controlling in this case.
Goede v. Rondorf 43 N.W.2d 770 Minn. 1950
Carlson v. Fredsall 37 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1949
Heidemann v. City of Sleepy Eye 264 N.W. 212 Minn. 1935
Heidemann v. City of Sleepy Eye 264 N.W. 212 Minn. 1935
[McDowell v. Village of Preston], 104 Minn. 263 , , 18 *621 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Petrich v. Village of Chisholm 231 N.W. 14 Minn. 1930
Petrich v. Village of Chisholm 231 N.W. 14 Minn. 1930
McDowell v. Village of Preston, 104 Minn. 263 , , 18 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Geiger v. Simpson Methodist-Episcopal Church 219 N.W. 463 Minn. 1928
Geiger v. Simpson Methodist-Episcopal Church 219 N.W. 463 Minn. 1928
Co. 100 Minn. 306 , ; McDowell v. Village of Preston, 104 Minn. 263 , , 18 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Aubin v. Duluth Street Railway Co. 211 N.W. 580 Minn. 1926
Aubin v. Duluth Street Railway Co. 211 N.W. 580 Minn. 1926
340 , 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 506; Berry, Automobiles (4th ed.) p. 948, § 1062; Phelps v. City of Mankato, 23 Minn. 276 ; Moore v. Townsend, 76 Minn. 64 , ; Nye v. Dibley, 88 Minn. 465 , ; McDowell v. Village of Preston, 104 Minn. 263 , , 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 190; Dun.
Kelty v. City of Minneapolis 196 N.W. 487 Minn. 1923
Kelty v. City of Minneapolis 196 N.W. 487 Minn. 1923
On the other hand, in McDowell v. Village of Preston, 104 Minn. 263 , , 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 190, the village authorities were held negligent as a matter of law in permitting a building to remain in a public street.
Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 179 N.W. 45 Minn. 1920
Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 179 N.W. 45 Minn. 1920
Co. 48 Minn. 433 , ; McDowell v. Village of Preston, 104 Minn. 263 , , 18 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Ogren v. City of Minneapolis 141 N.W. 120 Minn. 1913
Ogren v. City of Minneapolis 141 N.W. 120 Minn. 1913
Counsel for the plaintiff claims that even if the horses were unmanageable, and there was a runaway, there may be a recovery within the doctrine stated in McDowell v. Village of Preston, 104 Minn. 263 , , 18 L.R.A.
Juntti v. Oliver Iron Mining Co. 138 N.W. 673 Minn. 1912
Juntti v. Oliver Iron Mining Co. 138 N.W. 673 Minn. 1912
See, also, McDowell v. Village of Preston, 104 Minn. 263 , , 18 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Vills v. City of Cloquet 138 N.W. 33 Minn. 1912
Vills v. City of Cloquet 138 N.W. 33 Minn. 1912
McDowell v. Village of Preston, 104 Minn. 263 , ; Anderson v. Settergren, 100 Minn. 294 , .
Korpi v. Oliver Iron Mining Co. 131 N.W. 372 Minn. 1911
Patry v. Northern Pacific Railroad 131 N.W. 462 Minn. 1911
Korpi v. Oliver Iron Mining Co. 131 N.W. 372 Minn. 1911
McDowell v. Village of Preston, 104 Minn. 263 , , 18 L.R.A.
Patry v. Northern Pacific Railroad 131 N.W. 462 Minn. 1911
Co., 31 Minn. 57 , ; Campbell v. Railway Transfer Co., 95 Minn. 375 , ; McDowell v. Village of Preston, 104 Minn. 263 , , 18 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Neidhardt v. City of Minneapolis 127 N.W. 484 Minn. 1910
Neidhardt v. City of Minneapolis 127 N.W. 484 Minn. 1910
Upon the other hand, we have the comparativqly recent decision of this court in McDowell v. Village of Preston, 104 Minn. 263 , , 18 L.R.A.(N.S.)