Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Heiden v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co., 191 N.W. 254.

30 citing documents.

Webster v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 64 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 1954
Webster v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 64 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 1954
Nygren v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 63 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1954
Nygren v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 63 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1954
Co. 154 Minn. 102 , ; Peterson v. Minneapolis St.
Peterson v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 53 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 1952
Peterson v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 53 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 1952
Co. 154 Minn. 102 , , held that a motorman must operate his car at a speed and with such lookout that when vehicles on the track ahead can be discerned he can stop in time to avoid collision.
Olson v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 5 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 1942
Olson v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 5 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 1942
Co. 154 Minn. 102 , ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , ; Orrvar v. Morgan, 189 Minn. 306 , ; Tully v. Flour City C. & O. Co. 191 Minn. 84 , ; and Twa v. Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc. 201 Minn. 234 , , it was his conclusion that in view of the
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. 154 Minn. 102 , , and Hannan v. M. St.
Mechler v. McMahon 239 N.W. 605 Minn. 1931
Co. 154 Minn. 102 , 191 N.W.
Wicker v. North States Construction Co. Inc. 235 N.W. 630 Minn. 1931
Wicker v. North States Construction Co. Inc. 235 N.W. 630 Minn. 1931
Co. 154 Minn. 102 , , it was held that it was the duty of a motorman operating a street car after dark to have it under such control that Avhen the rays of the headlight enable him to discern a vehicle on the track he can stop the car in time to avoid a collision.
Peterson v. Miller 235 N.W. 15 Minn. 1931
Peterson v. Miller 235 N.W. 15 Minn. 1931
Co. 154 Minn. 102 , ; Tobisch v. Villaume, 164 Minn. 126 , ; Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193 , ; Carlson v. F. A. Martoccio Co. 179 Minn. 332 , .
Saunders v. Yellow Cab Corp. 233 N.W. 599 Minn. 1930
Saunders v. Yellow Cab Corp. 233 N.W. 599 Minn. 1930
Co. 154 Minn. 102 , ; Tobisch v. Villaume, 164 Minn. 126 , ; Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193 , ; Carlson v. F. A. Martoccio Co. 179 Minn. 332 , .
Jacobs v. Belland 214 N.W. 55 Minn. 1927
Jacobs v. Belland 214 N.W. 55 Minn. 1927
Co. 154 Minn. 102 , , relative to the duty of the motorman of a street car to travelers on the street to keep his car under such control that he could stop within the distance illuminated by his headlights.
Kimpell v. Duluth Street Railway Co. 208 N.W. 759 Minn. 1926
Kimpell v. Duluth Street Railway Co. 208 N.W. 759 Minn. 1926
Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo Brother 206 N.W. 377 Minn. 1925
Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo Brother 206 N.W. 377 Minn. 1925
Co. 154 Minn. 102 , ; Flaaten v. Lyons, 157 Minn. 362 , ; Hackert v. Prescott, supra, page 134.
Hackert v. Prescott 205 N.W. 893 Minn. 1925
Hackert v. Prescott 205 N.W. 893 Minn. 1925
Co. 154 Minn. 102 , ; Flaaten v. Lyons, 157 Minn. 362 , .
Sullivan v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 200 N.W. 922 Minn. 1924
Sullivan v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 200 N.W. 922 Minn. 1924
Co. 154 Minn. 102 , , which holds that it is the duty of a motorman operating a street car, after dark, to have it under such control that, when the rays of the headlight enable him to discern a vehicle on the track, he can stop the car in time to avoid a collision.
Hannan v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 191 N.W. 922 Minn. 1923
Hannan v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 191 N.W. 922 Minn. 1923
Co. 154 Minn. 102 , , we held it the duty of a motorman operating a street car after dark, it being his duty to be on the lookout for travelers, to have his car under such control that he could bring it to a stop within such distance as his headlight enabled him to see a vehicle on the street.