Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Zenner v. Great Northern Railway Co., 159 N.W. 1087.

32 citing documents.

Carpenter v. Mattison 219 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1974
Carpenter v. Mattison 219 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1974
Conner v. Dreyer 104 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1960
Conner v. Dreyer 104 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1960
Ohrmann v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. 27 N.W.2d 806 Minn. 1947
Ohrmann v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. 27 N.W.2d 806 Minn. 1947
Co. 135 Minn. 37, 39 , ; Lawler v. M. St.
Licha v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 276 N.W. 813 Minn. 1937
Licha v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 276 N.W. 813 Minn. 1937
Co. 135 Minn. 37 , ; Gowan v. McAdoo, 143 Minn. 227 , ; Crosby v. G. N. Ry.
Prescott v. Swanson 267 N.W. 251 Minn. 1936
Prescott v. Swanson 267 N.W. 251 Minn. 1936
Co. 135 Minn. 37, 42 , , a verdict of $4,585 was sustained.
Olson v. Chicago Great Western Railroad 259 N.W. 70 Minn. 1935
Olson v. Chicago Great Western Railroad 259 N.W. 70 Minn. 1935
Co. 135 Minn. 37 , ; Gowan v. McAdoo, 143 Minn. 227 , .
Crosby v. Great Northern Railway Co. 245 N.W. 31 Minn. 1932
Crosby v. Great Northern Railway Co. 245 N.W. 31 Minn. 1932
Co. 135 Minn. 37 , ; Gowan v. McAdoo, 143 Minn. 227 , ; see also Anno.
Lundh v. Great Northern Railway Co. 206 N.W. 43 Minn. 1925
Lundh v. Great Northern Railway Co. 206 N.W. 43 Minn. 1925
Co. 135 Minn. 37 , ; Kokesh v. Price, 136 Minn. 304 , , 23 A. L. R. 643; Kalland v. City of Brainerd, 141 Minn. 119 , ; Praught v. G. N. Ry.
Fink v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 203 N.W. 47 Minn. 1925
Fink v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 203 N.W. 47 Minn. 1925
Co. 135 Minn. 37 , ; Cotton v. W. & S. F. Ry.
Molden v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 200 N.W. 740 Minn. 1924
Molden v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 200 N.W. 740 Minn. 1924
Peterson v. Great Northern Railway Co. 199 N.W. 3 Minn. 1924
Peterson v. Great Northern Railway Co. 199 N.W. 3 Minn. 1924
Co. 135 Minn. 37 , ; Jenkins v. Minneapolis & St.
Perkins v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 197 N.W. 758 Minn. 1924
Perkins v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 197 N.W. 758 Minn. 1924
Hollister v. Hines 184 N.W. 856 Minn. 1921
Hollister v. Hines 184 N.W. 856 Minn. 1921
Co. 135 Minn. 37 , , it was held that the jury might find that ordinary care required "either crossing gates, or a flagman, or automatic bells or some other warning device” at the busiest crossing in a city of 10,000 inhabitants, but it was expressly stated that the, question whether such precautions were required at co
Hume v. Duluth & Iron Range Railroad 183 N.W. 288 Minn. 1921
Hume v. Duluth & Iron Range Railroad 183 N.W. 288 Minn. 1921
Co. 135 Minn. 37 , ; and Gowan v. McAdoo, 143 Minn. 227 , .
Gowan v. McAdoo 173 N.W. 440 Minn. 1919
Gowan v. McAdoo 173 N.W. 440 Minn. 1919
Kokesh v. Price 161 N.W. 715 Minn. 1917
Kokesh v. Price 161 N.W. 715 Minn. 1917