Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kludzinski v. Great Northern Railway Co., 153 N.W. 529.

26 citing documents.

Anthony Kelley, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Minn. 2021
Co. , –31 (Minn. 1915) ( concluding that circumstantial evidence suggesti ng defendant railroad company’s failure to “keep a proper lookout” proximately caused decedent to be crushed by a railcar was sufficient despite lack of eyewitness evidence).
David Greve v. Breezy Point International, Inc. d/b/a Breezy Point Resort Minn. Ct. App. 2014
David Greve v. Breezy Point International, Inc. d/b/a Breezy Point Resort Minn. Ct. App. 2014
130 Minn. 222, 224, 153 N.W.
Abbett v. County of St. Louis 474 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Abbett v. County of St. Louis 474 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Co., 130 Minn. 222, 224 , 153 N.W.
Elias v. City of St. Paul 350 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Elias v. City of St. Paul 350 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Co., 130 Minn. 222, 224 , 153 N.W.
Westling v. Holm 58 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1953
Westling v. Holm 58 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1953
Co. 130 Minn. 222 , ; Burke v. B. F. Nelson Mfg.
Hagsten v. Simberg 44 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 1950
Hagsten v. Simberg 44 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 1950
Co. 130 Minn. 222, 224 , , we said: “The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove that some negligent act of defendant caused the death of deceased.
Smock v. Mankato Elks Club 280 N.W. 851 Minn. 1938
Smock v. Mankato Elks Club 280 N.W. 851 Minn. 1938
Co. 130 Minn. 222 , ; McGillivray v. G. N. Ry.
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. 130 Minn. 222 , ; Thompson v. Minneapolis & St.
McNamee v. Hines 184 N.W. 675 Minn. 1921
McNamee v. Hines 184 N.W. 675 Minn. 1921
Co. 130 Minn. 222 , : “The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove that some negligent act of defendant caused the death of deceased.
Molstad v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 173 N.W. 563 Minn. 1919
Molstad v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 173 N.W. 563 Minn. 1919
Beecroft v. Great Northern Railway Co. 158 N.W. 800 Minn. 1916
Beecroft v. Great Northern Railway Co. 158 N.W. 800 Minn. 1916
Co. 130 Minn. 222 , , is consistent with this rule.
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. 130 Minn. 222 , ; 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