DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co., 215 N.W. 678.

71 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota by Smart Growth Minneapolis, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation v. City of ... 7 N.W.3d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • State of Minnesota by Smart Growth Minneapolis, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation v. City of ... 7 N.W.3d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    601, 602 (Minn. 1934), (“Where a party having the burden of proof with respect to a particular issue fails to sustain such burden, decision as to such issue must go against him.”); (explaining that “the burden of proof is with the affirmative” and “[t]he negative prevails automatically without evidence either way”).
  • City of Waite Park, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    601, 602 (Minn. 1934), cited in State v. Curtis, 921 (“Where a party having the burden of proof with respect to a particular issue fails to sustain such burden, decision as to such issue must go against him.”); (explaining that “the burden of proof is with the affirmative” and “[t]he negative prevails automatically without evidence either way”).
  • State v. Curtis 921 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2018
  • State v. Curtis 921 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2018
    See also Howard v. Marchildon , 228 Minn. 539 , , 836 (1949) ("Where a party having the burden of proof with respect to a particular issue fails to sustain such burden, decision as to such issue must go against him."); Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. , 172 Minn. 439 , 215 N.W.
  • Tracy v. Streater/Litton Industries 283 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1979
  • Tracy v. Streater/Litton Industries 283 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1979
    See, Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co., 172 Minn. 439, 442 , 215 N.W.
  • Peterson v. MINNEAPOLIS STAR AND TRIBUNE COMPANY 164 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1969
  • Peterson v. MINNEAPOLIS STAR AND TRIBUNE COMPANY 164 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1969
    In Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439, 441 , , we said: ‘* * * The negative prevails automatically without evidence either way, and should prevail in the absence of a preponderance of proof for the affirmative.
  • Roman v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 129 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 1964
  • Roman v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 129 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 1964
    We said in Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439, 442 , , 679: “It is for the triers of fact to choose not only between conflicting evidence but also between opposed inference.
  • Zappa v. Charles Manufacturing Co. 109 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 1961
  • Zappa v. Charles Manufacturing Co. 109 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 1961
    3 Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , ; *224 State ex rel.
  • Jeske v. George R. Wolff Holding Co. 83 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 1957
  • Jeske v. George R. Wolff Holding Co. 83 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 1957
    Hagsten v. Simberg, 232 Minn. 160 , 44 N. W. (2d) 611 ; Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , .
  • Casey v. Northern States Power Co. 77 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 1956
  • Casey v. Northern States Power Co. 77 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 1956
    2d) 486 ; Schwendig v. Anderson & Hedwall Co. 207 Minn. 14 , ; Westereng v. City of Morris, 205 Minn. 219 , ; Kruchowski v. Swift & Co. 201 Minn. 557 , ; Hill v. Umbehocker, 201 Minn. 569 , ; Wyatt v. Wyett, 200 Minn. 106 , ; Gardner v. State Dept. of Highways, 199 Minn. 172 , ; Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , ; Walker v. Minnesota Steel Co. 167 Minn. 475 , ; M. S. A. 1949, § 176.11, subd.
  • Standafer v. First National Bank 68 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1955
  • Distinguished Standafer v. First National Bank 68 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1955
    While usually it is true that little good is accomplished by attempting to distinguish cases in the field of negligence since the facts seldom are identical, we might say in passing that we believe that the facts in this case clearly are distinguishable from such cases as Hagsten v. Simberg, 232 Minn. 160 , 44 N. W. (2d) 611 ; Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , ; and Hanrahan v. Safway Steel Scaffold Co. 233 Minn. 171 , 46 N. W. (2d) 243 , relied upon by defendants.
  • Westling v. Holm 58 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1953
  • Westling v. Holm 58 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1953
    Hagsten v. Simberg, 232 Minn. 160 , 44 N„ W. (2d) 611; Marcum v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co. 225 Minn. 139 , 30 N. W. (2d) 24 ; Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , ; Kludzinski v. G. N. Ry.
  • Caskey v. Lewandowski 46 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 1951
  • Caskey v. Lewandowski 46 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 1951
    2 Ohlson v. Manderfeld, 28 Minn. 390 , ; Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , ; National Pole & Treating Co. v. Gilkey, 182 Minn. 21 , ; Baker v. Baker, 224 Minn. 117 , 28 N. W. (2d) 164 ; Ellingson v. Ellingson, 227 Minn. 149 , 34 N. W. (2d) 356 .
  • Hagsten v. Simberg 44 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 1950
  • Hagsten v. Simberg 44 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 1950
    In Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439, 441 , , we said: “* * * The negative prevails automatically without evidence either way, and should prevail in the absence of a preponderance of proof for the affirmative.
  • Goodland v. L. S. Donaldson Co. 36 N.W.2d 4 Minn. 1949
  • Goodland v. L. S. Donaldson Co. 36 N.W.2d 4 Minn. 1949
    Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab *586 Co. 172 Minn. 439 , ; Davis v. S. S. Kresge & Co. 169 Minn. 245 , ; Sieger v. Knox & Peterson, 160 Minn. 185 , ; Hinchuk v. Swift & Co. 149 Minn. 1 , .
  • Burke v. B. F. Nelson Manufacturing Co. 18 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1945
  • Burke v. B. F. Nelson Manufacturing Co. 18 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1945
    * * * It is only where the inference upon which the challenged finding rests is not itself reasonably supported or where it is clear that the whole evidence is in manifest and undeniable preponderance against it (even though there is some support for it in the evidence) that there should be a reversal.” Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. *388 439, 442, , and cases cited at p; 442.
  • Downing v. Maag 10 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 1943
  • Downing v. Maag 10 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 1943
    Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , 215 N.W.
  • Kiley v. Sward-Kemp Drug Co. 9 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 1943
  • Lunde v. Congoleum-Nairn, Inc. 1 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1942
  • Lunde v. Congoleum-Nairn, Inc. 1 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1942
    Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , .
  • Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co. 297 N.W. 19 Minn. 1941
  • Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co. 297 N.W. 19 Minn. 1941
    Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , ; Davis v. S. S. Kresge & Co. 169 Minn. 245 , ; Sieger v. Knox & Peterson, 160 Minn. 185 , ; Hinchuk v. Swift & Co. 149 Minn. 1 , .
  • Weinstein v. Schwartz 283 N.W. 127 Minn. 1938
  • Weinstein v. Schwartz 283 N.W. 127 Minn. 1938
    Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , .
  • Paine v. Gamble Stores, Inc. 279 N.W. 257 Minn. 1938
  • Paine v. Gamble Stores, Inc. 279 N.W. 257 Minn. 1938
    “It is only where the inference upon which the challenged finding rests is not itself reasonably supported or where it is clear that the whole evidence is in manifest and undeniable preponderance against it (even though there is some support for it in the evidence) that there should be a reversal.” Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439, 442 , .
  • Fredrickson v. Arrowhead Co-Operative Creamery Ass'n 277 N.W. 345 Minn. 1938
  • Fredrickson v. Arrowhead Co-Operative Creamery Ass'n 277 N.W. 345 Minn. 1938
    Lillstrom v. N. P. R. Co. 53 Minn. 464 , , 20 L. R. A. 587; Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , ; Honer v. Nicholson, supra.
  • Hill v. Umbehocker 277 N.W. 9 Minn. 1938
  • Hill v. Umbehocker 277 N.W. 9 Minn. 1938
    * * * It is only where the inference upon which the challenged finding rests is not itself reasonably supported or where it is clear that the whole evidence is in manifest and undeniable preponderance against it (even though there is some support for it in the evidence) that there should be a reversal.” Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439, 442 , .
  • Benson v. Northland Transportation Co. 274 N.W. 532 Minn. 1937
  • Benson v. Northland Transportation Co. 274 N.W. 532 Minn. 1937
    Co. 165 Minn. 223 , , and Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , .
  • Segerstrom v. Nelson, Mullen & Nelson, Inc. 269 N.W. 641 Minn. 1936
  • Segerstrom v. Nelson, Mullen & Nelson, Inc. 269 N.W. 641 Minn. 1936
    See Maher v. *302 Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , ; Reinhard v. Universal Film Exch.
  • Honer v. Nicholson 268 N.W. 852 Minn. 1936
  • Honer v. Nicholson 268 N.W. 852 Minn. 1936
    We said in Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439, 441 , , 679: “The negative prevails automatically Avithout evidence either Avay, and should prevail in the absence of a preponderance of proof for the affirmative.