DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Mechler v. McMahon, 239 N.W. 605.

56 citing documents.

  • Bartholet v. Berkness 189 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1971
  • Bartholet v. Berkness 189 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1971
    See, also, Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , ; Atwood v. Holmes, 229 Minn. 37 , 38 N. W. (2d) 62 , 11 A. L. R. (2d) 311.
  • Hathaway v. Dale Movers, Inc. 167 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 1969
  • Hathaway v. Dale Movers, Inc. 167 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 1969
    Inc. 186 Minn. 321 , ; Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , ; and Lee v. Smith, 253 Minn. 401 , 92 N. W. (2d) 117 .
  • Martinson v. Scherbel 129 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1964
  • Martinson v. Scherbel 129 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1964
    Co. 226 Minn. 27, 33 , 31 N. W. (2d) 905, 908 ; Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , ; Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193, 196 , ; Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103, 105 , ; Swoboda v. Brown, 129 Ohio St.
  • Kellerman v. Nelson 122 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1963
  • Kellerman v. Nelson 122 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1963
    See, Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , .
  • Lee v. Smith 92 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 1958
  • Lee v. Smith 92 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 1958
    Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , ; LaBelle v. Swanson, 248 Minn. 35 , 78 N. W. (2d) 358 .
  • Hondl v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 82 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1957
  • Hondl v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 82 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1957
    and then only if the plaintiff’s injury “(1) involves an invasion of the particular interest protected by the enactment, (2) was caused by the particular hazard or form of harm against which the enactment was designed to give protection, and (3) if it was proximately caused by the violation.” LaBelle v. Swanson, 248 Minn. 35, 41 , 78 N. W. (2d) 358, 363 ; Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476, 481 , ; Cooper v. Hoeglund, 221 Minn. 446 , 22 N. W. (2d) 150 ; Westlund v. Iverson, 154 Minn. 52 , ; Evere
  • Patton v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 77 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 1956
  • Patton v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 77 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 1956
    Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , .
  • Butler v. Engel 68 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 1954
  • Butler v. Engel 68 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 1954
    In Fairchild v. Fleming, 125 Minn. 431, 440 , , in construing L. 1911, c. 365, § 16, we said: “* * * it is to be observed that the statute creates no duty on the part of an automobile driver to conform to a specified rate of speed, but simply furnishes a rule of evidence in proving negligent or improper speed.” In Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , , we had under consideration Mason St.
  • Cooper v. Hoeglund 22 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1946
  • Cooper v. Hoeglund 22 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1946
    Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , ; Fraser v. G. N. Ry.
  • Medved v. Doolittle 19 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 1945
  • Medved v. Doolittle 19 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 1945
    Anderson v. Johnson, 208 Minn. 373 , ; Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , ; Flaherty v. G. N. Ry.
  • Flaherty v. Great Northern Railway Co. 16 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 1944
  • Flaherty v. Great Northern Railway Co. 16 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 1944
    Anderson v. Johnson, 208 Minn. 373 , Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , (truck parked on pavement.at night without lights); Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , (unguarded concrete mixer parked on pavement at night without warning lights).
  • Spencer v. Johnson 281 N.W. 879 Minn. 1938
  • Spencer v. Johnson 281 N.W. 879 Minn. 1938
    Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , .
  • Munkel v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad 278 N.W. 41 Minn. 1938
  • Munkel v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad 278 N.W. 41 Minn. 1938
    Thorstad v. Doyle, 199 Minn. 543 , ; Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , ; Wicker v. North States Construction Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , ; Pisarke v. Wisconsin T. & C. Co. 174 Wis.
  • Twa v. Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc. 275 N.W. 846 Minn. 1937
  • Twa v. Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc. 275 N.W. 846 Minn. 1937
    Forster v. Consumers W. S. Co. supra; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , ; Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , ; Brown v. Raymond Bros. M. T. Inc. 186 Minn. 321 , ; Adamek v. Tilford, 125 Neb.
  • Elkins v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 270 N.W. 914 Minn. 1937
  • Elkins v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 270 N.W. 914 Minn. 1937
    Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , .
  • Vogel v. Nash-Finch Co. 265 N.W. 350 Minn. 1936
  • Vogel v. Nash-Finch Co. 265 N.W. 350 Minn. 1936
    630 ; Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , ; Brown v. Raymond Bros. M. T. Co. 186 Minn. 321 , 243 N.W.
  • Harris v. Eggermont 265 N.W. 322 Minn. 1936
  • Harris v. Eggermont 265 N.W. 322 Minn. 1936
    795 ; Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , .
  • Murray v. Jacobson 262 N.W. 152 Minn. 1935
  • Murray v. Jacobson 262 N.W. 152 Minn. 1935
    Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , .
  • Duffey v. Curtis 258 N.W. 744 Minn. 1935
  • Duffey v. Curtis 258 N.W. 744 Minn. 1935
    He did not lose his statutory right of way unless his speed was unlawful, and whether or not his speed was unlawful depends upon whether the prima facie presumption was overcome by the circumstances surrounding the intersection at the time.” Respondents contend that under the rule of Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , , violation of the statute was conclusive evidence of contributory negligence.
  • Jannette v. M. F. Patterson Dental Supply Co. 258 N.W. 31 Minn. 1934
  • Jannette v. M. F. Patterson Dental Supply Co. 258 N.W. 31 Minn. 1934
    But plaintiff maintains that O’Dea produced no proof that his failure to stop his sedan before it came nearer than ten feet of the street car was not due to his negligence, and relies upon Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 176 , .
  • Guile v. Greenberg 257 N.W. 649 Minn. 1934
  • Guile v. Greenberg 257 N.W. 649 Minn. 1934
    e No. 6856, § 67, which provides: “No person shall, when riding, alloiv any part of the body to project beyond the limits of the vehicle, except when signalling with the arm, nor shall any person hang onto any vehicle.” From this it is contended that plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law under the rule laid down by this court in Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476, 480 , , which rule is as follows: “We now state the rule to be that, in the absence of valid excuse or jus
  • Mesberg v. City of Duluth 254 N.W. 597 Minn. 1934
  • Mesberg v. City of Duluth 254 N.W. 597 Minn. 1934
    Plaintiff claims that this section is applicable to the case at bar, that defendant bank A’iolated the same and hence is guilty of- negligence as a matter of law under the doctrine of Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , .
  • Carlson v. Stork 246 N.W. 746 Minn. 1933
  • Carlson v. Stork 246 N.W. 746 Minn. 1933
    Coffman v. Kummer, 179 Minn. 120 , ; Salera v. Schroeder, 183 Minn. 478 , ; Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , .
  • Martin v. Tracy 246 N.W. 6 Minn. 1932
  • Martin v. Tracy 246 N.W. 6 Minn. 1932
    The cases are collected and the doctrine discussed in Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193 , , and in Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , .
  • Brown v. Raymond Bros. Motor Transportation, Inc. 243 N.W. 112 Minn. 1932
  • Campbell v. Sargent 243 N.W. 142 Minn. 1932