Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Provinsal v. Peterson, 169 N.W. 481.

30 citing documents.

Johnson v. Moore 146 N.W.2d 599 Minn. 1966
Johnson v. Moore 146 N.W.2d 599 Minn. 1966
We said in Provinsal v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 122 , , where plaintiff walked directly into a moving automobile, that under the circumstances of that case it seemed clear that the speed of the automobile had nothing to do with the accident.
Cook v. Person 74 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1956
Cook v. Person 74 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1956
Wilmes v. Mihelich, 223 Minn. 139 , 25 N. W. (2d) 833 ; Draxton v. Katzmarek, 203 Minn. 161 , ; Provinsal v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 122 , .
O'NEILL v. Mund 49 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1951
O'NEILL v. Mund 49 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1951
See, also, Provinsal v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 122 , ; Markgraf v. McMillan, 197 Minn. 571 , ; 5 Am.
Wilmes v. Mihelich 25 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1947
Wilmes v. Mihelich 25 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1947
Provinsal v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 122 , ; Mark-graf v. McMillan, 197 Minn. 571 , ; 5 Am.
Draxton v. Katzmarek 280 N.W. 288 Minn. 1938
Draxton v. Katzmarek 280 N.W. 288 Minn. 1938
Provinsal v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 122 , ; Markgraf v. McMillan, 197 Minn. 571 , ; 5 Am.
Bird v. Johnson 272 N.W. 168 Minn. 1937
Bird v. Johnson 272 N.W. 168 Minn. 1937
Pro-vinsal v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 122 , ; Murray v. Jacobson, 195 Minn. 153 , .
Hoppe v. Peterson 265 N.W. 338 Minn. 1936
Hoppe v. Peterson 265 N.W. 338 Minn. 1936
Eelying upon Provinsal v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 122, 124 , , the argument for defendants is that decedent “walked into the car and got hurt, and that is all there is to the situation.” Three witnesses for the defense, coming in an automobile, 100 feet or more west of the scene of the accident, so testified that it might be difficult, were there no other e
Cheadle v. James 231 N.W. 242 Minn. 1930
Cheadle v. James 231 N.W. 242 Minn. 1930
Co. 82 Minn. 18 , ; Provinsal v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 122 , ; Bowers v. Colonial Warehouse Co. 153 Minn. 425 , ; Rintala v. D. W. & P. Ry.
Bruce v. Cohn 215 N.W. 520 Minn. 1927
Bruce v. Cohn 215 N.W. 520 Minn. 1927
Among the more recent of such cases here are Provinsal v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 122 , ; Pach v. Chippewa Springs Corp. 161 Minn. 125 , , and Chinander v. DeLaittre, 171 Minn. 11 , .
Weckwerth v. Proudfoot 214 N.W. 52 Minn. 1927
Weckwerth v. Proudfoot 214 N.W. 52 Minn. 1927
Appellants cite railroad crossing cases and Provinsal v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 122 , .
Pach v. Chippewa Springs Corporation 200 N.W. 293 Minn. 1924
Pach v. Chippewa Springs Corporation 200 N.W. 293 Minn. 1924
This case is not controlled by Bowers v. Colonial Warehouse Co. 158 Minn. 425 , , and Provinsal v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 122 , , because in those cases it was established as a fact that the pedestrian walked into the truck.
Shore v. Minter 199 N.W. 744 Minn. 1924
Shore v. Minter 199 N.W. 744 Minn. 1924
Plaintiff’s quoted testimony differentiates the case from Provinsal v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 122 , , and Feyrer v. Durbrow, 172 Wis.
Bowers v. Colonial Warehouse Co. 190 N.W. 609 Minn. 1922
Bowers v. Colonial Warehouse Co. 190 N.W. 609 Minn. 1922
The evidence in this case calls more persuasively for a directed verdict in favor of defendants than in Provinsal v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 122 , .
Hinkel v. Stemper 180 N.W. 918 Minn. 1921
Hinkel v. Stemper 180 N.W. 918 Minn. 1921
The case 'is wholly unlike Provinsal v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 122 , .
Unmacht v. Whitney 178 N.W. 886 Minn. 1920
Distinguished Unmacht v. Whitney 178 N.W. 886 Minn. 1920
Co. 82 Minn. 18 , , and Provinsal v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 122 , .