DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Roach v. Roth, 194 N.W. 322.

28 citing documents.

  • Hovey Ex Rel. Corporon v. Wagoner 177 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 1970
  • Hovey Ex Rel. Corporon v. Wagoner 177 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 1970
    Christensen v. Pestorious, 189 Minn. 548 , ; Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 170 Minn. 250 , ; Ewert v. Chirpich, 169 Minn. 386 , ; Roach v. Roth, 156 Minn. 107 , ; Stanger v. Thompson, 153 Minn. 488 , ; Piepho v. M. Sigbert-Awes Co. 152 Minn. 315 , .
  • Busch v. Lilly 101 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1960
  • Busch v. Lilly 101 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1960
    Again, in Roach v. Roth, 156 Minn. 107, 111 , , this court said that in a personal injury action want of ordinary care is the best of contributory negligence and that a charge which refers to negligence “in any degree whatsoever” is objectionable, and more so when it refers to negligence in the slightest degree.
  • Strobel v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co. 96 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 1959
  • Strobel v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co. 96 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 1959
    2 Roach v. Roth, 156 Minn. 107, 110 , , is not a controlling case to the contrary.
  • Zuber v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 74 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1956
  • Zuber v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 74 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1956
    In Roach v. Roth, 156 Minn. 107 , , an instruction was given in response to jurors’ question as to whether the rule of comparative negligence applied, and this court held the instruction given under the circumstances did not constitute reversible error.
  • Mockler v. City of Stillwater 74 N.W.2d 118 Minn. 1955
  • Mockler v. City of Stillwater 74 N.W.2d 118 Minn. 1955
    Craig v. Benedictine Sisters Hospital Assn. supra; Roach v. Roth, 156 Minn. 107 , .
  • Anderson v. Enfield 70 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1955
  • Anderson v. Enfield 70 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1955
    Howard v. Marchildon, 228 Minn. 539 , 37 N. W. (2d) 833 ; Spencer v. Johnson, 203 Minn. 402 , ; Roach v. Roth, 156 Minn. 107 , ; Robertson v. Spitler, 153 Minn. 395 , .
  • Zurko v. Gilquist 62 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 1954
  • Zurko v. Gilquist 62 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 1954
    Roach v. Roth, 156 Minn. 107 , ; Craig v. Benedictine Sisters Hospital Assn. 88 Minn. 535 , ; Mailand v. Mailand, 83 Minn. 453 , ; 6 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Erickson v. Northern Minnesota National Bank of Duluth 50 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1951
  • Erickson v. Northern Minnesota National Bank of Duluth 50 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1951
    While argumentative instructions are to be condemned, viewing these instructions in light of the court’s general charge to the jury and from a practical, common-sense point of view, as we should (Mailand v. Mailand, 83 Minn. 453, 455 , ; Roach v. Roth, 156 Minn. 107, 110 , 324 ), we find no reversible error.
  • Gordon v. Pappas 34 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1948
  • Gordon v. Pappas 34 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1948
    “Want of ordinary care is the test of contributory negligence as of negligence.” Roach v. Roth, 156 Minn. 107, 111 , .
  • Hill v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 297 N.W. 627 Minn. 1941
  • Hill v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 297 N.W. 627 Minn. 1941
    As said in Curran v. C. G. W. E. Co. 134 Minn. 892 , 396, , 957: “A charge is to be construed from the practical standpoint of the jury.” And again in Roach v. Roth, 156 Minn. 107, 110-111 , , 324: “We view a charge, however, in a practical way, and to some extent from the standpoint of a juror’s understanding of it, for the jury applies it.
  • St. George v. Lollis 296 N.W. 523 Minn. 1941
  • St. George v. Lollis 296 N.W. 523 Minn. 1941
    See Freeman v. Morris Const. Co. 179 Minn. 94 , ; Roach v. Roth, 156 Minn. 107 , ; Quinn-Shepherdson Co. v. U. S. F. & G. Co. 149 Minn. 261 , ; Geddes v. Van Rhee, 126 Minn. 517 , .
  • Christensen v. Pestorious 250 N.W. 363 Minn. 1933
  • Christensen v. Pestorious 250 N.W. 363 Minn. 1933
    Piepho v. Sigbert-Awes Co. 152 Minn. 315 , ; Stanger v. Thompson, 153 Minn. 488 , ; Roach v. Roth, 156 Minn. 107 , ; Ewert v. Chirpich, 169 Minn. 386 , ; Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 170 Minn. 250 , ; Garbush v. New York L. Ins.
  • Carlson v. Naddy 232 N.W. 3 Minn. 1930
  • Carlson v. Naddy 232 N.W. 3 Minn. 1930
    Assn. 88 Minn. 535 , , and Roach v. Roth, 156 Minn. 107 , .
  • Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 212 N.W. 413 Minn. 1927
  • Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 212 N.W. 413 Minn. 1927
    Mr. Justice Dibell in Stanger v. Thompson, 153 Minn. 488, 491 , , said: “Statements of the law-found in reported decisions or in texts are not always good for juries and sometimes they are misleading.” See also Roach v. Roth, 156 Minn. 107 , .