Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Jasinuk v. Lombard, 250 N.W. 568.

26 citing documents.

Staloch v. Belsaas 136 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1965
Staloch v. Belsaas 136 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1965
See, Jasinuk v. Lombard, 189 Minn. 594 , ; Holz v. Pearson, 229 Minn. 395 , 39 N. W. (2d) 867 .
Anderson v. Johnson 294 N.W. 224 Minn. 1940
Distinguished Anderson v. Johnson 294 N.W. 224 Minn. 1940
ng seen the headlights of the approaching automobile she paid any further attention to it, she answered: “No, it seemed to be away back, so I didn’t pay any attention.” In our opinion, the case is within the rule of such cases as Stallman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422 , ; Quinn v. Heidman, 157 Minn. 129 , ; Larson v. Fox, 189 Minn. 536 , ; and Jasinuk v. Lombard, 189 Minn. 594 , .
Ryan v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. 289 N.W. 557 Minn. 1939
Ryan v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. 289 N.W. 557 Minn. 1939
To the extent that their implications are opposed to what is here declared, such decisions as that in Jasinuk v. Lombard, 189 Minn. 594 , , should be ignored.
Luce v. Great Northern Railway Co. 281 N.W. 812 Minn. 1938
Luce v. Great Northern Railway Co. 281 N.W. 812 Minn. 1938
In contrast is Jasinuk v. Lombard, 189 Minn. 594 , , where the facts, as the jury could have found them, did not overcome the presumption.
Flaugh v. Egan Chevrolet, Inc. 279 N.W. 582 Minn. 1938
Flaugh v. Egan Chevrolet, Inc. 279 N.W. 582 Minn. 1938
Jasinuk v. Lombard, 189 Minn. 594 , .
Holmes v. Lilygren Motor Co. Inc. 275 N.W. 416 Minn. 1937
Holmes v. Lilygren Motor Co. Inc. 275 N.W. 416 Minn. 1937
Plaintiff relies on Jasinuk v. Lombard, 189 Minn. 594, 598 , ; but in that case all the evidence offered was received as to the relation of Lombard to the car and the interest of the codefendant National Cab Company therein and the arrangement under which the cab was operated, as well as the ordinance under which the company had to assume responsibility whe
Hack v. Johnson 275 N.W. 381 Minn. 1937
Hack v. Johnson 275 N.W. 381 Minn. 1937
394 , and Jasinuk v. Lombard, 189 Minn. 594 , 250 N.W.
Anderson v. Kelley 265 N.W. 821 Minn. 1936
Anderson v. Kelley 265 N.W. 821 Minn. 1936
The guiding principles applicable to the situation here appearing are adequately set forth in Jasinuk v. Lombard, 189 Minn. 594 , 596-597 , 250 N.W.
Vogel v. Nash-Finch Co. 265 N.W. 350 Minn. 1936
Hoppe v. Peterson 265 N.W. 338 Minn. 1936
Hoppe v. Peterson 265 N.W. 338 Minn. 1936
The evidence for plaintiff, aided by the presumption that the deceased was exercising due care (compare Jasinuk v. Lombard, 189 Minn. 594 , ), well supports the inference that Mr. Hoppe may have stopped because he saw the truck approaching and was awaiting its passage in front of him.
Vogel v. Nash-Finch Co. 265 N.W. 350 Minn. 1936
In Jasinuk v. Lombard, 189 Minn. 594 , 250 N.W.
Oxborough v. the Murphy Transfer Storage Co 260 N.W. 305 Minn. 1935
Oxborough v. the Murphy Transfer Storage Co 260 N.W. 305 Minn. 1935
The cases cited in support are too numerous for further reference here.” Jasinuk v. Lombard, 189 Minn. 594, 597 , ; Burud v. G. N. Ry.
Gross v. General Investment Co. 259 N.W. 557 Minn. 1935
Gross v. General Investment Co. 259 N.W. 557 Minn. 1935
Co. 169 Minn. 342 , ; Jasinuk v. Lombard, 189 Minn. 594 , , cited by defendants, which may be said to disapprove the instructions now assailed.
Williams v. Jungbauer 252 N.W. 658 Minn. 1934
Williams v. Jungbauer 252 N.W. 658 Minn. 1934
Appellant relies on Jasinuk v. Lombard, 189 Minn. 594 , .