Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Moores v. Northern Pacific Railway Co., 121 N.W. 392.

52 citing documents.

Shafer Ex Rel. Shafer v. Gaylord 176 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1970
Shafer Ex Rel. Shafer v. Gaylord 176 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1970
Co. 108 Minn. 100 , ; Robinson v. Butler, 226 Minn. 491 , 33 N. W. (2d) 821 , 4 A. L. R. (2d) 143; Sanders v. Gilbertson, 224 Minn. 546 , 29 N. W. (2d) 357 ; Barrett v. Nash Finch Co. 228 Minn. 156 , 36 N. W. (2d) 526 ; Tandeski v. Barnard, 265 Minn. 339 , 121 N. W. (2d) 708 ; 13B Dunriell, Dig.
Haugen v. Dick Thayer Motor Co. 91 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1958
Haugen v. Dick Thayer Motor Co. 91 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1958
Co. 108 Minn. 100, 101 , , and again in Robinson v. Butler, 226 Minn. 491, 495 , 33 N. W. (2d) 821, 823 , we said: “* * * Theorize as we may on the subject of proximate cause, it is in *209 its last analysis a question of good common sense, to be solved by a practical consideration of the evidence in each particular case.
Johnson v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 64 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1954
Johnson v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 64 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1954
Robinson v. Butler 33 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1948
Robinson v. Butler 33 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1948
Co. 108 Minn. 100, 101 , , we said: “* * * Theorize as we may on the subject of proximate cause, it is in its last analysis a question of good common sense, to be solved by a practical consideration of the.
Walker v. Stecher 17 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1944
Walker v. Stecher 17 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1944
Co. 108 Minn. 100 , 101 , 121 N.W.
Nees v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 16 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1944
Nees v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 16 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1944
Smock v. Mankato Elks Club 280 N.W. 851 Minn. 1938
Smock v. Mankato Elks Club 280 N.W. 851 Minn. 1938
Co. 108 Minn. 100 , ; Lewis v. C. G. W. R. Co. 124 Minn. 487 , ; Crandall v. C. G. W. R. Co. 127 Minn. 498 , ; Kludzinski v. G. N. Ry.
Golden v. Lerch Bros. Inc. 281 N.W. 249 Minn. 1938
Golden v. Lerch Bros. Inc. 281 N.W. 249 Minn. 1938
Co. 108 Minn. 100, 101 , : “ ‘Theorize as -we may on the subject of proximate cause, it is in its last analysis a question of good common sense, to be solved by a practical consideration of the evidence in each particular case.’ ” Peterson v. Fulton, 192 Minn. 360, 364 , .
Peterson v. Fulton 256 N.W. 901 Minn. 1934
Peterson v. Fulton 256 N.W. 901 Minn. 1934
Co. 108 Minn. 100, 101 , : “Theorize as we may on the subject of proximate cause, it is in its last analysis a question of good common sense, to be solved ,by a practical consideration of the evidence in each particular case.” The cases in Minnesota dealing with proximate cause are collected and well reviewed in a note in
Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 215 N.W. 678 Minn. 1927
Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 215 N.W. 678 Minn. 1927
Co. 108 Minn. 100 , , and denied it in Bruckman v. C. St.
MacIntosh v. Great Northern Railway Co. 188 N.W. 551 Minn. 1922
MacIntosh v. Great Northern Railway Co. 188 N.W. 551 Minn. 1922
Co. 108 Minn. 100 , ; Hurley v. Illinois Cent.
McNamee v. Hines 184 N.W. 675 Minn. 1921
McNamee v. Hines 184 N.W. 675 Minn. 1921
Co. 108 Minn. 100 , ; Bruckman v. Chicago, St.
Childs v. Standard Oil Co. 182 N.W. 1000 Minn. 1921
Childs v. Standard Oil Co. 182 N.W. 1000 Minn. 1921
Co. 108 Minn. 100 , : “Theorize as we may on the subject of proximate cause, it is in its last analysis a question of good common sense, to be solved by a practical consideration of the evidence in each particular case.” Substantially the same statement was repeated in Healy v. Hoy, 115 Minn. 321 , ; Wiles v
Clark v. George 180 N.W. 1011 Minn. 1921
Clark v. George 180 N.W. 1011 Minn. 1921
Farrell v. G. O. Miller Co. 179 N.W. 566 Minn. 1920
Farrell v. G. O. Miller Co. 179 N.W. 566 Minn. 1920
Co. 108 Minn. 100 , , followed in Wiles v. G. N. Ry.
Thompson v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 158 N.W. 42 Minn. 1916
Thompson v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 158 N.W. 42 Minn. 1916
Co. 108 Minn. 100 , ; Hurley v. Illinois Central R. Co. supra, page 101, .
Hurley v. Illinois Central Railroad 157 N.W. 1005 Minn. 1916
Hurley v. Illinois Central Railroad 157 N.W. 1005 Minn. 1916
McColl v. Cameron 148 N.W. 108 Minn. 1914
McColl v. Cameron 148 N.W. 108 Minn. 1914
Wiles v. Great Northern Railway Co. 147 N.W. 427 Minn. 1914
Wiles v. Great Northern Railway Co. 147 N.W. 427 Minn. 1914
Lewis v. Chicago Great Western Railroad 145 N.W. 393 Minn. 1914
Lewis v. Chicago Great Western Railroad 145 N.W. 393 Minn. 1914
Co. 108 Minn. 100 , ; Healy v. Hoy, 115 Minn. 321 , ; La Pray v. Lavoris Chemical Co. 117 Minn. 152 , ; Murphy v. Twin City Taxicab Co. 122 Minn. 363 , .
Mitton v. Cargill Elevator Co. 144 N.W. 434 Minn. 1913
Mitton v. Cargill Elevator Co. 144 N.W. 434 Minn. 1913
Co. 108 Minn 100, ; Demerce v. Minneapolis, St.
Murphy v. Twin City Taxicab Co. 142 N.W. 716 Minn. 1913
Murphy v. Twin City Taxicab Co. 142 N.W. 716 Minn. 1913
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. 108 Minn. 100 , ; Bruckman v. Chicago, St.
Hull v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 133 N.W. 852 Minn. 1911
Hull v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 133 N.W. 852 Minn. 1911
Co. 108 Minn. 100 , ; Ellington v. Great Northern Ry.
Healy v. Hoy 132 N.W. 208 Minn. 1911
Healy v. Hoy 132 N.W. 208 Minn. 1911
Co. 108 Minn. 100 , ; Coultas v. Hennepin Paper Co. 114 Minn. 309 , .