DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kayser v. Van Nest, 146 N.W. 1091.

29 citing documents.

  • Lange v. Potter 132 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1965
  • Lange v. Potter 132 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1965
    “[T]he act of the stranger is substantially the act of the servant; the stranger being considered an instrumentality in the hands of the servant.” A similar result was reached in Kayser v. Van Nest, 125 Minn. 277 , , 51 L. R. A. (N.S.)
  • Keen v. Clarkson 108 P.2d 573 Ariz. 1940
  • Schreder v. Litchy 251 N.W. 513 Minn. 1933
  • Schreder v. Litchy 251 N.W. 513 Minn. 1933
    Kayser v. Van Nest, 125 Minn. 277 , , 51 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Byam v. Inter-State Iron Co. 250 N.W. 812 Minn. 1933
  • Byam v. Inter-State Iron Co. 250 N.W. 812 Minn. 1933
    382; Kayser v. Van Nest, 125 Minn. 277 , , 51 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Lausche v. Denison-Harding Chevrolet Co. 243 N.W. 52 Minn. 1932
  • Felcyn v. Gamble 241 N.W. 37 Minn. 1932
  • Felcyn v. Gamble 241 N.W. 37 Minn. 1932
    In other words, does the family car doc *359 trine as announced in Kayser v. Van Nest, 125 Minn. 277 , , 51 L.R.A.(N.S.)970, apply to motorboats as well as to automobiles ?
  • Payne v. Leininger 199 N.W. 435 Minn. 1924
  • Payne v. Leininger 199 N.W. 435 Minn. 1924
    Mogle v. A. W. Scott Co. 144 Minn. 173 , , 7 L. R. A. 1496, and cases cited; Kayser v. Van Nest, 125 Minn. 277 , , 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 970, and cases cited.
  • Richardson v. Weiss 188 N.W. 1008 Minn. 1922
  • Richardson v. Weiss 188 N.W. 1008 Minn. 1922
    The doctrine has developed step by step until it *395 has now reached a stage where this court holds that when the head of a family makes it his business to furnish an automobile to provide recreation and pleasure for the members of the family, he- is responsible for its negligent use by any one of the family having his permission to drive it, Kayser v. Van Nest, 125 Minn. 277 , , 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 970; Uphoff v. McCormick, 139 Minn. 392 , ; Johnson v. Evans, 141 Minn. 356 , , 2 A. L. R. 891;
  • Johnson v. Schuler 188 N.W. 271 Minn. 1922
  • Johnson v. Schuler 188 N.W. 271 Minn. 1922
    The case on its facts is a close one; but within Kayser v. Van Nest, 125 Minn. 277 , , 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 970; Jensen v. Fischer, 131 Minn. 336 , ; and Johnson v. Evans, 141 Minn. 356 , , 2 A. L. R. 871, and the cases there cited, it was for the jury and not the court to say whether the Dort car was kept so much for a family use and its use for the pleasur
  • Morken v. St. Pierre 179 N.W. 681 Minn. 1920
  • Rosenau v. Peterson 179 N.W. 647 Minn. 1920
  • Rosenau v. Peterson 179 N.W. 647 Minn. 1920
    This renders unnecessary a consideration of the question whether plaintiff is responsible for the negligence of his sister in the operation of the automobile under the “family automobile doctrine,” as stated and applied in Kayser v. Van Nest, 125 Minn. 277 , , 51 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Morken v. St. Pierre 179 N.W. 681 Minn. 1920
    That doctrine has been recognized and applied in numerous cases among which are Kayser v. Van Nest, 125 Minn. 277 , , 51 L.R.A.
  • Mogle v. A. W. Scott Co. 174 N.W. 832 Minn. 1919
  • Mogle v. A. W. Scott Co. 174 N.W. 832 Minn. 1919
    As was said in Kayser v. Van Nest, 125 Minn. 277 , , 51 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Johnson v. Smith 173 N.W. 675 Minn. 1919
  • Johnson v. Smith 173 N.W. 675 Minn. 1919
    Ploetz v. Holt, 124 Minn. 169 , ; Kayser v. Van Nest, 125 Minn. 277 , , 51 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Benton v. Regeser 179 P. 966 Ariz. 1919
  • Johnson v. Evans 170 N.W. 220 Minn. 1919
  • Johnson v. Evans 170 N.W. 220 Minn. 1919
    Ploetz v. Holt, 124 Minn. 169 , ; Kayser v. Van Nest, 125 Minn. 277 , , 51 L.R.A.
  • Provo v. Conrad 153 N.W. 753 Minn. 1915
  • Provo v. Conrad 153 N.W. 753 Minn. 1915
    598; Ploetz v. Holt, 124 Minn. 169 , ; Kayser v. Van Nest, 125 Minn. 277 , ; Geiss v. Twin City Taxicab Co. 120 Minn. 368 , , 45 L.R.A.(N.S.)