DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Geisen v. Luce, 242 N.W. 8.

45 citing documents.

  • Yamry-Smoley v. Zehrer 432 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Yamry-Smoley v. Zehrer 432 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    Appellant’s violation of this statute hinges on the interpretation of the word “impossible.” In Geisen v. Luce, 185 Minn. 479 , 242 N.W.
  • Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis v. MacMillan 169 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 1969
  • Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis v. MacMillan 169 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 1969
    In addition, defendants contend that notwithstanding MacMillan’s own negligence, the negligence of other drivers in the collision intervened and was a superseding cause which insulated defendant’s negligence, citing Geisen v. Luce, 185 Minn. 479 , ; Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352 , 19 N. W. (2d) 788 ; and Sims v. Hallett Const. Co. 247 Minn. 339 , 77 N. W. (2d) 54 .
  • Sowada v. Motzko 98 N.W.2d 182 Minn. 1959
  • Sowada v. Motzko 98 N.W.2d 182 Minn. 1959
    It is true that the time factor which characterizes the intervening efficient cause is not present here with the same force as presented in Medved v. Doolittle, supra, and Geisen v. Luce, 185 Minn. 479 , .
  • Kollodge v. F. AND L. APPLIANCES, INC. 80 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1956
  • Kollodge v. F. AND L. APPLIANCES, INC. 80 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1956
    Geisen v. Luce, 185 Minn. 479 , .
  • Leman v. Standard Oil Co. 74 N.W.2d 513 Minn. 1956
  • Leman v. Standard Oil Co. 74 N.W.2d 513 Minn. 1956
    Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352 , 19 N. W. (2d) 788 ; Geisen v. Luce, 185 Minn. 479 , .
  • Kedrowski v. Czech 69 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1955
  • Kedrowski v. Czech 69 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1955
    The disabled-car provision of the statute was analyzed in the case of Geisen v. Luce, 185 Minn. 479, 483 , , where this court, before proceeding to a discussion of the relative fact claims of the parties in that case, asked the question: “Was it ‘impossible to avoid stopping and temporarily leaving such vehicle in such position?”’ This court then went on to a discussion of the application of the seco
  • Peters v. Bodin 65 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 1954
  • Peters v. Bodin 65 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 1954
    Barrett v. Nash Finch Co. 228 Minn. 156 , 36 N. W. (2d) 526 ; Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352 , 19 N. W. (2d) 788 ; Geisen v. Luce, 185 Minn. 479 , ; and Denson v. McDonald, 144 Minn. 252 , , cases in which the negligence of an oncoming driver was held to constitute an intervening cause sufficient to insulate the negligence of the owner of a parked car on the highway, relied upon by plaintiffs in support of their contention, are clearl
  • LeMire v. Nelson 58 N.W.2d 189 Minn. 1953
  • LeMire v. Nelson 58 N.W.2d 189 Minn. 1953
    See, Geisen v. Luce, 185 Minn. 479 , 242 N.W.
  • Leman v. Standard Oil Co. 57 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 1953
  • Leman v. Standard Oil Co. 57 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 1953
    Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352 , 19 N. W. (2d) 788 ; Geisen v. Luce, 185 Minn. 479 , .
  • McHardy v. Standard Oil Co. 44 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1950
  • McHardy v. Standard Oil Co. 44 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1950
    Geisen v. Luce, 185 Minn. 479 , .
  • Carlson v. Fredsall 37 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1949
  • Murray v. Wilson 35 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1949
  • Murray v. Wilson 35 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1949
    Defendant argues that the statute has no application here because the bus had come to a stop, while the statute refers to overtaking a vehicle “proceeding in the same directionIt is to be noted that § 169.18 not only applies when passing a vehicle proceeding in the same direction, but, by its terms, “or at any other time.” Further, the same argument was advanced in Geisen v. Luce, 185 Minn. 479 , , where a car likewise passed to the left of *369 a parked car.
  • Rue v. Wendland 33 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1948
  • Rue v. Wendland 33 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1948
    Geisen v. Luce, 185 Minn. 479 , , is not in point, because there the approaching motorist was not misled by bright lights of a standing car.
  • Cooper v. Hoeglund 22 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1946
  • Cooper v. Hoeglund 22 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1946
    Co. 218 Minn. 532 , 16 N. W. (2d) 758 (stopping without giving proper signal); Martini v. Johnson, 204 Minn. 556 , , and Peterson v. Doll, 184 Minn. 213 , (driving more closely than is reasonable and prudent); Schmitt v. Emery, 211 Minn. 547 , 2 N. W. (2d) 413 , 139 A. L. R. 1242, and Geisen v. Luce, 185 Minn. 479
  • Medved v. Doolittle 19 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 1945
  • Medved v. Doolittle 19 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 1945
    Geisen v. Luce, 185 Minn. 479 , .
  • Smith v. Carlson 296 N.W. 132 Minn. 1941
  • Smith v. Carlson 296 N.W. 132 Minn. 1941
    The question of causal relation is one of fact for the jury and, *275 as we said in Anderson v. Johnson, 208 Minn. 377 , , “should be determined by them in the exercise of practical common sense rather than by the application of abstract principles.” The cases of Geisen v. Luce, 185 Minn. 479 , , and Hamilton v. Vare, 184 Minn. 580 , , are not in point for the reason that neither of them involved an emergency situation such as was present here.
  • State v. Gettins 285 N.W. 533 Minn. 1939
  • Bartley v. Fritz 285 N.W. 484 Minn. 1939
  • Bartley v. Fritz 285 N.W. 484 Minn. 1939
    If there was uncontradicted evidence that Schulte was asleep in the strict sense of the term, it might be argued that the rule enunciated in Geisen v. Luce, 185 Minn. 479 , , would govern the case.
  • State v. Gettins 285 N.W. 533 Minn. 1939
    Geisen v. Luce, 185 Minn. 479 , ; McGuire v. Oklahoma City Bldg.
  • Hack v. Johnson 275 N.W. 381 Minn. 1937
  • Distinguished Hack v. Johnson 275 N.W. 381 Minn. 1937
    *Page 13 Geisen v. Luce, 185 Minn. 479 , 242 N.W.
  • Fleenor v. Rowley 269 N.W. 370 Minn. 1936
  • Fleenor v. Rowley 269 N.W. 370 Minn. 1936
    On the question of proximate cause the case is to be distinguished from Geisen v. Luce, 185 Minn. 479 , , where IJlaintiff was injured when the car in which he was riding passed a standing car in the immediate wake of another car and took to the ditch to avoid a collision with a vehicle coming from the opposite direction.
  • Lund v. Springsteel 246 N.W. 116 Minn. 1932
  • Lund v. Springsteel 246 N.W. 116 Minn. 1932
    The cases are collected in Geisen v. Luce, 185 Minn. 479 , , *580 and cases there cited.
  • Martin v. Tracy 246 N.W. 6 Minn. 1932
  • Martin v. Tracy 246 N.W. 6 Minn. 1932
    In Geisen v. Luce, 185 Minn. 479 , 242 27.
  • Pankonin v. Federal Life Insurance Co. 246 N.W. 14 Minn. 1932
  • Pankonin v. Federal Life Insurance Co. 246 N.W. 14 Minn. 1932
    See also Geisen v. Luce, 185 Minn. 479 , .