DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hillstrom v. Mannheimer Bros., 178 N.W. 881.

40 citing documents.

  • Thorstad v. Doyle 273 N.W. 255 Minn. 1937
  • Thorstad v. Doyle 273 N.W. 255 Minn. 1937
    The following cases on this phase are helpful: Hillstrom v. Mannheimer Brothers, 146 Minn. 202, 206 , ; Wells v. Weed, 197 Minn. 464 , 267 * Findley v. Brittenham, 199 Minn. 197 , .
  • Findley v. Brittenham 271 N.W. 449 Minn. 1937
  • Findley v. Brittenham 271 N.W. 449 Minn. 1937
    See Hillstrom v. Mannheimer Bros. 146 Minn. 202, 206 , ; Wells v. Weed, 197 Minn. 464, 469 , .
  • Wells v. Weed 267 N.W. 379 Minn. 1936
  • Wells v. Weed 267 N.W. 379 Minn. 1936
    We know definitely she had an injury on the left side of her brain and which involved the motor and sensory areas of her brain and the speech center.” In Hillstrom v. Mannheimer Bros. 146 Minn. 202, 206 , , this court sustained a recovery of $12,000.
  • Guthrie v. Brown 256 N.W. 898 Minn. 1934
  • Guthrie v. Brown 256 N.W. 898 Minn. 1934
    Hillstrom v. Mannheimer Bros. 146 Minn. 202 , ; Soderberg v. Taney, 152 Minn. 376 , ; Klare v. Peterson, 161 Minn. 16 , ; Primock v. Goldenberg, 161 Minn. 160 , , 37 A. L. R. 484; Joncas v. Minneapolis St.
  • Mechler v. McMahon 239 N.W. 605 Minn. 1931
  • Mechler v. McMahon 239 N.W. 605 Minn. 1931
  • Mechler v. McMahon 239 N.W. 605 Minn. 1931
    Co. 121 Minn. 445 , ; Schaar v. Conforth, 128 Minn. 460 , ; Benson v. Larson, 133 Minn. 346 , ; Hillstrom v. Mannheimer Bros. 146 Minn. 202 , ; Thomas v. Stevenson, 146 Minn. 272 , ; Unmacht v. Whitney, 146 Minn. 327 , ; Farrell v. G. O. Miller Co. 147 Minn. 52 , ; Cohen v. Silverman, *479 153 Minn. 391 , ; Frederick v. McRae, 157 Minn. 366 , ; Kennedy v. Hedberg, 159 Min
  • Mechler v. McMahon 239 N.W. 605 Minn. 1931
    426 ; Hillstrom v. Mannheimer Bros. 146 Minn. 202 , 178 N.W.
  • Christopherson v. Custom Laundry Co. 229 N.W. 136 Minn. 1930
  • Christopherson v. Custom Laundry Co. 229 N.W. 136 Minn. 1930
    See also Schaar v. Conforth, 128 Minn. 460 , ; Benson v. Larson, 133 Minn. 346 , ; Hillstrom v. Mannheimer Brothers, 146 Minn. 202 , ; Farrell v. G. O. Miller Co. 147 Minn. 52 , ; Elvidge v. Strong & Warner Co. 148 Minn. 185 , ; Cohen v. Silverman, 153 Minn. 391 , ; Frederick v. McRae, 157 Minn. 366 , .
  • Brown v. Knutson 228 N.W. 752 Minn. 1930
  • Brown v. Knutson 228 N.W. 752 Minn. 1930
    And plaintiff rests on Hillstrom v. Mannheimer Bros. 146 Minn. 202 , .
  • Pearson v. Zacher 217 N.W. 369 Minn. 1928
  • Pearson v. Zacher 217 N.W. 369 Minn. 1928
    Compare Hillstrom v. Mannheimer Brothers, 146 Minn. 202 , .
  • Letnes v. Davis 214 N.W. 761 Minn. 1927
  • Letnes v. Davis 214 N.W. 761 Minn. 1927
    Co. 162 Minn. 96 , ; Anderson v. Wood, 125 Minn. 102 , ; Hillstrom v. Mannheimer Brothers, 146 Minn. 202 , .
  • Anderson v. Duban 212 N.W. 180 Minn. 1927
  • Anderson v. Duban 212 N.W. 180 Minn. 1927
    The rule by which we are guided is stated in Hillstrom v. Mannheimer Bros. 146 Minn. 202 , , and cases cited.
  • Powell v. Standard Oil Co. 210 N.W. 55 Minn. 1926
  • Powell v. Standard Oil Co. 210 N.W. 55 Minn. 1926
    The holdings in the following cases are pertinent: Hillstrom v. Mannheimer Bros. 146 Minn. 202 , ; Strand v. G. N. Ry.
  • Bradley v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 201 N.W. 606 Minn. 1924
  • Bradley v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 201 N.W. 606 Minn. 1924
    The suggestion that plaintiff should have looked at the street car a second time before going upon the track to protect himself from contributory negligence as a matter of law is sufficiently answered by Hillstrom v. Mannheimer Bros. 146 Minn. 202 , , wherein the court said: “Was plaintiff’s failure to look to the west a second time when he would have had a clear view up Selby avenue contributory negligence as a matter of law?
  • Klare v. Peterson 200 N.W. 817 Minn. 1924
  • Klare v. Peterson 200 N.W. 817 Minn. 1924
    Hillstrom v. Mannheimer Bros. 146 Minn. 202 , .
  • Barrett v. Lumber Exchange Co. 198 N.W. 804 Minn. 1924
  • Barrett v. Lumber Exchange Co. 198 N.W. 804 Minn. 1924
    See Hillstrom v. Mannheimer Brothers, 146 Minn. 202 , , and cases there cited.
  • Quinn v. Heidman 195 N.W. 774 Minn. 1923
  • Quinn v. Heidman 195 N.W. 774 Minn. 1923
    Stallman v. Shea, supra; Johnson v. Brastad, 143 Minn. 332 , ; Hillstrom v. Mannheimer Bros. 146 Minn, 202, .
  • Moody v. Canadian Northern Railway Co. 194 N.W. 639 Minn. 1923
  • Moody v. Canadian Northern Railway Co. 194 N.W. 639 Minn. 1923
    Hill-strom v. Mannheimer Brothers, 116 Minn. 202 , .
  • Mannheimer Bros. v. Kansas Casualty & Surety Co. 184 N.W. 189 Minn. 1921
  • Mannheimer Bros. v. Kansas Casualty & Surety Co. 184 N.W. 189 Minn. 1921
    There was an appeal in the Hillstrom case and an affirmance in this court, 146 Minn. 202 , .
  • Mannheimer Bros. v. Kansas Casualty & Surety Co. 180 N.W. 229 Minn. 1920
  • Mannheimer Bros. v. Kansas Casualty & Surety Co. 180 N.W. 229 Minn. 1920
    Hillstrom and Walter Hanscom, under the circumstances related in Hillstrom v. Mannheimer Bros. 146 Minn. 202 , .
  • Unmacht v. Whitney 178 N.W. 886 Minn. 1920
    Schaar v. Conforth, 128 Minn. 460 , Hillstrom v. Mannheimer Bros. supra, page 202, .
  • Thomas v. Stevenson 178 N.W. 1021 Minn. 1920
    eet in the direction in which the motor is proceeding,” was to fix by definite rule the distance which must be lighted and thus to remove from the province of the jury the duty of determining in particular cases what is a “reasonable distance.” The absence of a statutory light was negligence per se, Schaar v. Conforth, 128 Minn. 460 , ; Hillstrom v. Mannheimer Bros. supra, page 202, ; Unmacht v. Whitney, infra, page 327.