Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co., 212 N.W. 413.

36 citing documents.

City of St. Paul v. DiBucci 229 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1975
City of St. Paul v. DiBucci 229 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1975
State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294 , Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co., 170 Minn. 250 , 212 N.W.
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 , .
State v. Bond 173 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1969
State v. Bond 173 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1969
State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294 , 126 N. W. (2d) 389 ; Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 170 Minn. 250 , .
State v. Scalzo 147 N.W.2d 926 Minn. 1967
State v. Scalzo 147 N.W.2d 926 Minn. 1967
Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 170 Minn. 250 , .
State v. Currie 126 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1964
State v. Currie 126 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1964
7 Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 170 Minn. 250 , ; see, also, State v. Glazer, 176 Minn. 442 , .
Sauke v. Bird 125 N.W.2d 421 Minn. 1963
Sauke v. Bird 125 N.W.2d 421 Minn. 1963
2 Manion v. Tweedy, 257 Minn. 59, 64 , 100 N. W. (2d) 124, 128 ; State v. Wilson, 238 Minn. 447, 452 , 57 N. W. (2d) 412, 415 ; Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 170 Minn. 250, 253 , ; Barnes v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 233 Minn. 410, 420 , 47 N. W. (2d) 180, 187 ; Minnesota Jury Instruction Guides, Instruction 29.
State v. Pearson 110 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 1961
State v. Pearson 110 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 1961
Properly enough, we defer to his judgment and do not interfere unless it is fairly evident that he failed to keep the jury within the bounds of reason and common sense.’ *484 “In Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 170 Minn. 250, 255 , , it is said: “ ‘The learned trial court has approved the verdict, and our limitations command that we be guided by the general rule applicable to other discretionary orders.’ ” In the instant case, as in any condemnation proceedings, the vital question is the differe
Carpenter v. Nelson 101 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1960
Carpenter v. Nelson 101 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1960
gard v. Connolly, 211 Minn. 342 , 1 N. W. (2d) 137 ; Guin v. Mastrud, 206 Minn. 382 , ; Timmerman v. March, 199 Minn. 376 , ; Wells v. Weed, 197 Minn. 464 , ; Romann v. Bender, 190 Minn. 419 , ; Baufield v. Warburton, 181 Minn. 506 , ; Gau v. J. Borgerding & Co. 175 Minn. 150 , ; Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 170 Minn. 250 , ; Lowe v. Armour Packing Co. 148 Minn. 464 , ; Carson v. Turrish, 140 Minn. 445 , , L. R. A. 1918F, 154; Crozier v. Minneapolis St.
Barnes v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 47 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1951
Barnes v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 47 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1951
Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 170 Minn. 250 , .
State v. Silvers 40 N.W.2d 630 Minn. 1950
State v. Silvers 40 N.W.2d 630 Minn. 1950
Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 170 Minn. 250 , .
Duff v. Bemidji Motor Service Co. 299 N.W. 196 Minn. 1941
Duff v. Bemidji Motor Service Co. 299 N.W. 196 Minn. 1941
Cf. Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 170 Minn. 250 , .
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.
Northern States Power Co. v. Barnard 245 N.W. 609 Minn. 1932
Northern States Power Co. v. Barnard 245 N.W. 609 Minn. 1932
Properly enough, we defer to his judgment and do not interfere unless it is fairly evident that he failed to keep the jury within the bounds of reason and common sense.” In Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 170 Minn. 250, 255 , , it is said: “The learned trial court has approved the verdict, and our limitations command that we be guided by the general rule applicable to other discretionary orders.” The vital question is as to the difference in the reasonable market value of this farm before and af
Edblad v. Brower 227 N.W. 493 Minn. 1929
Edblad v. Brower 227 N.W. 493 Minn. 1929
Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 170 Minn. 250 , .
Gau v. J. Borgerding & Co. 220 N.W. 412 Minn. 1928
Gau v. J. Borgerding & Co. 220 N.W. 412 Minn. 1928
Co. 94 Minn. 241 , ; L’Herault v. City of Minneapolis, 69 Minn. 261 , ; Carson v. Turrish, 140 Minn. 445 , , L. R. A. 1918F, 154; Lowe v. Armour Packing Co. 148 Minn. 464 , ; Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 170 Minn. 250 , .
Rimmer v. Cohen 215 N.W. 198 Minn. 1927
Rimmer v. Cohen 215 N.W. 198 Minn. 1927
Co. 170 Minn. 332 , ; Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 170 Minn. 250 , ; Letnes v. Davis, 171 Minn. 399 , , and cases cited.
Letnes v. Davis 214 N.W. 761 Minn. 1927
Letnes v. Davis 214 N.W. 761 Minn. 1927
Co. 170 Minn. 332 , ; Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 170 Minn. 250 , ; Unmacht v. Whitney, 146 Minn. 327 , ; Quinn v. C. M. & St.
State v. Larson 213 N.W. 900 Minn. 1927
State v. Larson 213 N.W. 900 Minn. 1927
State v. Renswick, 85 Minn. 19, 22 , ; State v. Bryant, 97 Minn. 8 , ; and see Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 170 Minn. 250 , , holding that a conviction of a violation of an ordinance cannot be shown for the purpose of impeaching a witness, because such a violation is not a criminal offense.