DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Brown v. Murphy Transfer & Storage Co., 251 N.W. 5.

39 citing documents.

  • Spaulding v. Zimmerman 116 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 1962
  • Spaulding v. Zimmerman 116 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 1962
    There are, however, numerous decisions holding that insurance limitations have no part in the trial of actions relating to personal injuries or property damage, Jeddeloh v. Hockenhull, 219 Minn. 541 , 18 N. W. (2d) 582 ; Lee v. Osmundson, 206 Minn. 487 , ; see, also, Brown v. Murphy Transfer & Storage Co. 190 Minn. 81 , ; and it would seem fairly clear that the principles governing this rule would be equally applicable here.
  • Dellwo v. Pearson 107 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1961
  • Dellwo v. Pearson 107 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1961
    7 Brown v. Murphy Transfer & Storage Co. 190 Minn. 81, 86 , .
  • Anderson v. Enfield 70 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1955
  • Anderson v. Enfield 70 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1955
    There is authority to the effect that it may be improper to show that one of two defendants is not protected by insurance (Brown v. Murphy Transfer & Storage Co. 190 Minn. 81 , ), but likewise, there is authority that a mere mention of insurance *481 does not always constitute reversible error.
  • Peters v. Bodin 65 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 1954
  • Peters v. Bodin 65 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 1954
    Duff v. Bemidji Motor Service Co. 210 Minn. 456 , ; Brown v. Murphy Transfer & Storage Co. 190 Minn. 81 , ; Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , .
  • Ostrowski v. Mockridge 65 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 1954
  • Ostrowski v. Mockridge 65 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 1954
    rance is not featured or made the basis at the trial for an appeal to increase or decrease the damages, the information would seem to be without prejudice.” In the cases relied upon by defendant (Jeddeloh v. Hockenhull, 219 Minn. 541 , 18 N. W. [2d] 582; Lee v. Osmundson, 206 Minn. 487 , ; Prescott v. Swanson, 197 Minn. 325 , ; Brown v. Murphy Transfer & Storage Co. 190 Minn. 81 , ), the existence of liability insurance was repeatedly emphasized either by questioning or in closing arguments
  • Nicholas v. Hennepin Wheel Goods Co. 58 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 1953
  • Nicholas v. Hennepin Wheel Goods Co. 58 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 1953
    See, Brown v. Murphy Transfer & Storage Co. 190 Minn. 81, 85 , .
  • Swanson v. LaFontaine 57 N.W.2d 262 Minn. 1953
  • Swanson v. LaFontaine 57 N.W.2d 262 Minn. 1953
    Co. 144 Minn. 398, 402 , ; Brown v. Murphy Transfer & Storage Co. 190 Minn. 81, 85 , ; Anderson v. M. St.
  • Dose v. Yager 42 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 1950
  • Dose v. Yager 42 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 1950
    Mahowald v. Beckrich, 212 Minn. 78 , 2 N. W. (2d) 569 ; Duffey v. Curtis, 193 Minn. 358 , ; Hayden v. Lundgren, 175 Minn. 449 , ; Hustvet v. Kuusinen, 184 Minn. 222 , ; Brown v. Murphy Transfer & Storage Co. 190 Minn. 81 , .
  • Gordon v. Pappas 34 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1948
  • Thelen v. Gartner 31 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1948
  • Thelen v. Gartner 31 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1948
    Brown v. Murphy T. & S. Co. 190 Minn. 81 , ; 6 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Jeddeloh v. Hockenhull 18 N.W.2d 582 Minn. 1945
  • Jeddeloh v. Hockenhull 18 N.W.2d 582 Minn. 1945
    Lee v. Osmundson, 206 Minn. 487 , ; see, also, Brown v. Murphy T. & S. Co. 190 Minn. 81 , ; Prescott v. Swanson, 197 Minn. 325 , ; Swanson v. Swanson, 196 Minn. 298 , .
  • Walker v. Stecher 17 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1944
  • Walker v. Stecher 17 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1944
    849 ; Brown v. Murphy Transfer Storage Co. 190 Minn. 81 , 251 N.W.
  • Jaenisch v. Vigen 297 N.W. 29 Minn. 1941
  • Jaenisch v. Vigen 297 N.W. 29 Minn. 1941
    Brown v. Murphy Transfer & Storage Co. 190 Minn. 81 , ; Hobbs-Western Co. v. Carmical, 192 Ark.
  • Anderson v. Johnson 294 N.W. 224 Minn. 1940
  • Anderson v. Johnson 294 N.W. 224 Minn. 1940
    App. 362 , 172 P. 180 ; Brown v. Murphy T. & S. Co. 190 Minn. 81 , .
  • Twa v. Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc. 275 N.W. 846 Minn. 1937
  • Twa v. Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc. 275 N.W. 846 Minn. 1937
    Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , ; Brown v. Murphy T. & S. Co. 190 Minn. 81 , .
  • Johnson v. Sunshine Creamery Co. 274 N.W. 404 Minn. 1937
  • Johnson v. Sunshine Creamery Co. 274 N.W. 404 Minn. 1937
    849 ; Brown v. Murphy Transfer Storage Co. 190 Minn. 81 , 251 N.W.
  • Findley v. Brittenham 271 N.W. 449 Minn. 1937
  • Findley v. Brittenham 271 N.W. 449 Minn. 1937
    The language used by this court in Brown v. Murphy T. & S. Co. 190 Minn. 81, 86 , , fits the present case: “With no regret we decline the invitation of the case to add to the already excessive literature of the law dealing, or attempting to deal, with the doctrine of proximate cause, much of which both fin case and in commentary is mystifying and futile.’ Cardozo, Paradoxes of
  • Guild v. Miller 271 N.W. 332 Minn. 1937
  • Guild v. Miller 271 N.W. 332 Minn. 1937
    Where two such causes ‘combine to produce injuries,’ the author of neither can *147 escape liability ‘because he is responsible for only one of them.’ ” Brown v. Murphy T. & S. Co. 190 Minn. 81, 85 , .
  • Tri-State Transfer Co. v. Nowotny 270 N.W. 684 Minn. 1936
  • Tri-State Transfer Co. v. Nowotny 270 N.W. 684 Minn. 1936
    Brown v. Murphy T. & S. Co. 190 Minn. 81 , , and Prescott v. Swanson, 197 Minn. 325 , , cited by plaintiff, involved different situations.
  • Szyperski v. Swift Company 269 N.W. 401 Minn. 1936
  • Szyperski v. Swift Company 269 N.W. 401 Minn. 1936
    To the same effect is Brown v. Murphy T. & S. Co. 190 Minn. 81 , .