Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Larkin v. City of Minneapolis, 127 N.W. 1129.

26 citing documents.

Kroning v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. 567 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1997
Kroning v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. 567 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1997
Cf. Adelmann v. Elk River Lumber Co., 242 Minn. 388, 392 , Larkin v. City of Minneapolis, 112 Minn. 311, 315 , *48 127 N.W.
Olander v. Sperry and Hutchinson Company 197 N.W.2d 438 Minn. 1972
Olander v. Sperry and Hutchinson Company 197 N.W.2d 438 Minn. 1972
In Larkin v. City of Minneapolis, 112 Minn. 311 , we said that the Olcott decision is to be limited to its facts and not extended.
Brittain v. City of Minneapolis 84 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1957
Distinguished Brittain v. City of Minneapolis 84 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1957
Paul, 116 Minn. 249 , ; Larkin v. City of Minneapolis, 112 Minn. 311 , .
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
Larkin v. City of Minneapolis, 112 Minn. 311 , .
Leman v. Standard Oil Co. 57 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 1953
Leman v. Standard Oil Co. 57 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 1953
An instruction must not assume the existence of facts in controversy (Larkin v. City of Minneapolis, 112 Minn. 311 , ), nor place too much emphasis on particular facts (State v. Maddaus, 137 Minn. 249 , ), nor on the testimony of particular witnesses (Gibbon Farmers Elev.
Sward v. Nash 40 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1950
Sward v. Nash 40 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1950
contends that this was an issue of fact for the jury, and, further, that this was an adoption of plaintiff’s view of the terms of the contract and a determination that plaintiff had not intentionally violated his contract; that the latter facts were also for the jury’s determination; and that, because the instruction assumed their existence, it was erroneous, citing Larkin v. City of Minneapolis, 112 Minn. 311 , .
Hebert v. Village of Hibbing 212 N.W. 186 Minn. 1927
Hebert v. Village of Hibbing 212 N.W. 186 Minn. 1927
1916E, 897; Larkin v. *214 City of Minneapolis, 112 Minn. 311 , .
Hampton v. City of Duluth 168 N.W. 20 Minn. 1918
Hampton v. City of Duluth 168 N.W. 20 Minn. 1918
Anderson v. City of Minneapolis, 138 Minn. 350 , ; Weber v. City of Minneapolis, 132 Minn. 170 , ; Ackeret v. City of Minneapolis, 129 Minn. 190 , ; Smith v. City of Cloquet, 120 Minn. 50 , ; Larkin v. City of Minneapolis, 112 Minn. 311 , ; Kandelin v. City of Ely, 110 Minn. 55 , .
Barrett v. Van Duzee 166 N.W. 407 Minn. 1918
Barrett v. Van Duzee 166 N.W. 407 Minn. 1918
It certainly is not a misstatement of the facts condemned in the decision of Larkin v. City of Minneapolis, 112 Minn. 311, 315 , , and Anderson v. Wormser, 129 Minn. 8 , , cited by appellant.
Anderson v. City of Minneapolis 165 N.W. 134 Minn. 1917
Anderson v. City of Minneapolis 165 N.W. 134 Minn. 1917
Larkin v. City of Minneapolis, 112 Minn. 311 , ; Ackeret v. City of Minneapolis, 129 Minn. 190 , , L.R.A.
Weber v. City of Minneapolis 156 N.W. 287 Minn. 1916
Weber v. City of Minneapolis 156 N.W. 287 Minn. 1916
1915D, 1111 ; Larkin v. City of Minneapolis, 113 Minn. 311 , .
Murphy v. City of St. Paul 153 N.W. 619 Minn. 1915
Murphy v. City of St. Paul 153 N.W. 619 Minn. 1915
Kandelin v. City of Ely, 110 Minn. 55 , , and cases cited; Larkin v. City of Minneapolis, 112 Minn. 311 , , and cases cited.
Ackeret v. City of Minneapolis 151 N.W. 976 Minn. 1915
Ackeret v. City of Minneapolis 151 N.W. 976 Minn. 1915
Paul, 80 Minn. 415 , ; Terryll v. City of Faribault, 81 Minn. 519 , ; Terryll v. City of Faribault, 84 Minn. 341 , ; Kandelin v. City of Ely, 110 Minn. 55 , ; Larkin v. City of Minneapolis, 112 Minn. 311 , ; Wornecka v. City of St.