Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State Ex Rel. v. M. St. P. S. S. M. Ry. Co., 251 N.W. 275.

29 citing documents.

Soo Line Railroad v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 304 N.W.2d 301 Minn. 1981
Marie Railway, 190 Minn. 162 , (city cannot compel railroad to erect bridge over tracks when statute vests exclusive jurisdiction over such matters in state agency; construing predecessor to section 219.40).
Bronson v. Joyner's Silver & Electroplating, Inc. 127 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1964
Thus, in the Kelley case, where an employee was killed on a public highway at a railroad crossing about one-third of a mile from his place of employment, compensation was denied because ( 190 Minn. 293 , )— “* * * the crossing of the public highway over the railroad tracks was in no wise * * * adjacent or appurtenant to the mill wherein decedents were exclusively employed.” In Otto v. Duluth St.
Minneapolis Gas Co. v. Zimmerman 91 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1958
Minneapolis Gas Co. v. Zimmerman 91 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1958
Minneapolis Eastern Railway Co. v. City of Minneapolis 77 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 1956
Minneapolis Eastern Railway Co. v. City of Minneapolis 77 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 1956
Co. 190 Minn. 162, 164 , ; 16 Dunnell, Dig.
Kotschevar v. Township of North Fork 39 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1949
Orme v. Atlas Gas and Oil Co. 13 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1944
Cocker v. Cocker 10 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1943
Cocker v. Cocker 10 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1943
P. & S. S. M. Ry Co. 190 Minn. 162, 165 , , in discussing a statute which in part at least superseded the common law: “* * * Our single duty of the moment is to ascertain legislative design and give it scope over the whole of its intended field.
Olson v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 5 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 1942
Judd v. Landin 1 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 1942
Judd v. Landin 1 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 1942
Co. 190 Minn. 162, 164 , .
Scott v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 290 N.W. 431 Minn. 1940
Scott v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 290 N.W. 431 Minn. 1940
Co. 190 Minn. 162 , ; Wells-Dickey Trust Co. v. C. B. & Q. R. Co. 159 Minn. 417 , .
Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Thornton Bros. Co. 288 N.W. 226 Minn. 1939
Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Thornton Bros. Co. 288 N.W. 226 Minn. 1939
Co. 190 Minn. 162 , ), and Ave see no reason why it should not apply also in the field of contract law.
State v. Hofacre 288 N.W. 13 Minn. 1939
State v. Hofacre 288 N.W. 13 Minn. 1939
Co. 190 Minn. 162, 165 , .
Teders v. Rothermel 286 N.W. 353 Minn. 1939
Teders v. Rothermel 286 N.W. 353 Minn. 1939
Co. 190 Minn. 162, 165 , .
Fletcher v. Scott 277 N.W. 270 Minn. 1938
Fletcher v. Scott 277 N.W. 270 Minn. 1938
Co. 190 Minn. 162 , ), we hold that the homestead exemption survives as against the claims of large categories of the owner’s employes, for wages, salaries, and other similar compensation.
Licha v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 276 N.W. 813 Minn. 1937
Licha v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 276 N.W. 813 Minn. 1937
Co. 190 Minn. 162, 164 , , we indicated the scope of the statute by saying: “It (L. 1925, c. 336) much amplified existing statutes but did not explicitly amend any.” A brief résumé of the statute will demonstrate what is meant.
Olson v. Chicago Great Western Railroad 259 N.W. 70 Minn. 1935
Olson v. Chicago Great Western Railroad 259 N.W. 70 Minn. 1935
Co. 190 Minn. 162 , , the same section was under consideration.
Anderson v. Hill 254 N.W. 585 Minn. 1934
Anderson v. Hill 254 N.W. 585 Minn. 1934
Co. 190 Minn. 162 , (following Wells-Dickey Trust Co. v. C. B. & Q. R. Co. 159 Minn. 417 , ).