Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Banner Laundry Co. v. Great Eastern Casualty Co., 180 N.W. 997.

30 citing documents.

Crowell v. Delafield Farmers Mutual Fire Insurance Co. 463 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1990
Crowell v. Delafield Farmers Mutual Fire Insurance Co. 463 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1990
Banner Laundry Co. v. Great Eastern Casualty Co., 148 Minn. 29, 34 , 180 N.W.
Crowell v. Delafield Farmers Mutual Fire Insurance Co. 453 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Crowell v. Delafield Farmers Mutual Fire Insurance Co. 453 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Banner Laundry Co. v. Great Eastern Casualty Co., 148 Minn. 29, 34 , 180 N.W.
Anderson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 397 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Anderson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 397 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Banner Laundry Co. v. Great Eastern Casualty Co., 148 Minn. 29, 34 , 180 N.W.
Hane v. Hallock Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. 258 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1977
Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis v. Maher 258 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 1977
Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis v. Maher 258 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 1977
Banner Laundry Company v. Great Eastern Casualty Company, 148 Minn. 29, 33-4 , d [180 N.W.]
Hane v. Hallock Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. 258 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1977
In Banner Laundry Co. v. Great Eastern Casualty Co., 148 Minn. 29, 34 , 180 N.W.
Antell v. PEARL ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 89 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 1958
Antell v. PEARL ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 89 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 1958
Co. 148 Minn. 29, 34 , , this court said, supporting the statement by numerous citations from texts and decisions from other jurisdictions, that: “* * * The authorities all agree that it is not necessary that the in *126 sured should have an absolute right of property, and that he has an insurable interest if, by th
Nathan v. St. Paul Mutual Insurance Co. 68 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1955
Nathan v. St. Paul Mutual Insurance Co. 68 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1955
Co. 148 Minn. 29, 34 , , is as follows: «* * * Thg authorities all agree that it is not necessary that the insured should have an absolute right of property, and that he has an insurable interest if, by the destruction of the property, he will suffer a loss, whether he has or has not any title to, lien upon, or poss
Garbush v. Order of United Commercial Travelers of America 228 N.W. 148 Minn. 1929
Garbush v. Order of United Commercial Travelers of America 228 N.W. 148 Minn. 1929
Co. 148 Minn. 29 , ; State Ins.
Basa v. Pierz Farmers Mutual Fire Insurance 227 N.W. 39 Minn. 1929
Basa v. Pierz Farmers Mutual Fire Insurance 227 N.W. 39 Minn. 1929
Co. 148 Minn. 29 , , that the insured have an absolute right of property, but that he has an insurable interest, if by the destruction of the property, he suffers a loss.
McLevis v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 206 N.W. 940 Minn. 1926
McLevis v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 206 N.W. 940 Minn. 1926
Co. 44 Minn. 440 , ; Banner L. Co. v. G. E. C. Co. 148 Minn. 29 , ; The Andes Ins.
Mathews v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. 202 N.W. 896 Minn. 1925
Mathews v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. 202 N.W. 896 Minn. 1925
Banner Laundry Co. v. Great Eastern Casualty Co. 148 Minn. 29 , .
Mark v. Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance 198 N.W. 1003 Minn. 1924
Mark v. Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance 198 N.W. 1003 Minn. 1924
See Banner Laundry Co. v. Great Eastern Casualty Co. 148 Minn. 29 , , and authorities cited; National Fire Ins.
Shake v. Westchester Fire Insurance Co. of New York 196 N.W. 804 Minn. 1924
Shake v. Westchester Fire Insurance Co. of New York 196 N.W. 804 Minn. 1924
See Banner Laundry Co. v. Great Eastern Casualty Co. 148 Minn. 29 , ; 26 C. J. p. 25.
Alling v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 194 N.W. 313 Minn. 1923
Alling v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 194 N.W. 313 Minn. 1923
To the same general effect are Banner Laundry Co. v. Great Eastern Casualty Co. 148 Minn. 29 , ; and Childs v. Standard Oil Co. 149 Minn. 166 , .
Kleinman v. Banner Laundry Co. 186 N.W. 123 Minn. 1921
Kleinman v. Banner Laundry Co. 186 N.W. 123 Minn. 1921
Co. 148 Minn. 29, , involving the same explosion, it was correctly suggested that by the weight of authority the res ipsa loquitur doctrine was without application to an explosion of a steam bother, but a decision was unnecessary to a determination of'the case, the evidence being deemed to show that there was no negligen