DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cosgrove v. McGonagle, 264 N.W. 134.

30 citing documents.

  • Thielbar v. Juenke 189 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1971
  • Thielbar v. Juenke 189 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1971
    Kachman v. Blosberg, 251 Minn. 224 , 87 N. W. (2d) 687 ; Cosgrove v. McGonagle, 196 Minn. 6 , ; Anderson v. Davis, 151 Minn. 454 , ; Hacker v. Berkner, 263 Minn. 278 , 117 N. W. (2d) 13 ; Henjum v. Bok, 261 Minn. 74 , 110 N. W. (2d) 461 ; Lee v. Smith, 253 Minn. 401 , 92 N. W. (2d) 117 ; Merritt v. Stuve, 215 Minn. 44 , 9 N. W. (2d) 329 .
  • Monson v. Matheson 140 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 1966
  • Monson v. Matheson 140 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 1966
    s court dealing with the precise factual situation here involved, these authorities are relevant and helpful: Brady v. Kroll, 244 Minn. 525 , 70 N. W. (2d) 354 ; McCormick v. Malecha, 266 Minn. 33 , 122 N. W. (2d) 446 ; Cook v. Person, 246 Minn. 119 , 74 N. W. (2d) 389 ; Kime v. Koch, 227 Minn. 372 , 35 N. W. (2d) 534 ; Stedman v. Norlin, 243 Minn. 389 , 68 N. W. (2d) 393 ; Cosgrove v. McGonagle, 196 Minn. 6 , ; Kapla v. Lehti, 225 Minn. 325 , 30 N. W. (2d) 685 ; and Barrie v. Ackerman, 250 Minn
  • Shastid v. Shue 77 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1956
  • Shastid v. Shue 77 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1956
    innesota “that one, suddenly confronted by a peril, through no fault of his own, who in the attempt to escape does not choose the best or safest way, should not be held negligent because of such choice unless it was so hazardous that the ordinarily prudent person would not have made it under similar conditions.” Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107, 110 , ; Cosgrove v. McGonagle, 196 Minn. 6, 13 , ; Carlson v. Sanitary Farm Dairies, Inc. 200 Minn. 177, 184 , .
  • McMillen v. Meyer 74 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1956
  • Cook v. Person 74 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1956
  • McMillen v. Meyer 74 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1956
    6 See, Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40 , 29 N. W. (2d) 448 ; Katlaba v. Pfeifer, 238 Minn. 298 , 56 N. W. (2d) 725 ; Bauer v. Miller Motor Co. 197 Minn. 352 , ; Cosgrove v. McGonagle, 196 Minn. 6 , ; Lamp v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 305 Pa.
  • Cook v. Person 74 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1956
    In Cosgrove v. McGonagle, 196 Minn. 6, 13 , , which involved a similar situation and like contentions as to speed, we stated: “* * * Rather, it seems clear that this entire difficulty arose from the fact that the Peerless driver suddenly swerved out of his traffic lane at a point where he did not have the opportunity of seeing what was
  • Swanson v. LaFontaine 57 N.W.2d 262 Minn. 1953
  • Swanson v. LaFontaine 57 N.W.2d 262 Minn. 1953
    This is a case for the application of the rule stated in Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107, 110 , ; and Cosgrove v. McGonagle, 196 Minn. 6, 13 , .
  • Katlaba v. Pfeifer 56 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 1953
  • Katlaba v. Pfeifer 56 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 1953
    3 Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40 , 29 N. W. (2d) 448 ; Cosgrove v. McGonagle, 196 Minn. 6 , ; E. C. Vogt, Inc. v. Ganley Brothers Co. 185 Minn. 442 , ; 6 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Kime v. Koch 35 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1949
  • Kime v. Koch 35 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1949
    In Cosgrove v. McGonagle, 196 Minn. 6 , , traffic was heavy.
  • Melzer v. Snow 29 N.W.2d 647 Minn. 1947
  • Melzer v. Snow 29 N.W.2d 647 Minn. 1947
    In Cosgrove v. McGonagle, 196 Minn. 6, 12 , , we stated: a* * * we are governed by what is obvious to an unprejudiced mind sitting in judgment.
  • Cofran v. Swanman 29 N.W.2d 448 Minn. 1947
  • Cofran v. Swanman 29 N.W.2d 448 Minn. 1947
    Cosgrove v. McGonagle, 196 Minn. 6 , .
  • Dahlstrom v. Hurtig 295 N.W. 508 Minn. 1940
  • Dahlstrom v. Hurtig 295 N.W. 508 Minn. 1940
    The facts in this case are much like those we had before us in Cosgrove v. McGonagle, 196 Minn. 6, 13 , , where we held as a matter of law that the proximate cause of the accident was the sudden and unexpected appearance of an approaching car in defendant’s lane of traffic.
  • Erickson v. Morrow 287 N.W. 628 Minn. 1939
  • Erickson v. Morrow 287 N.W. 628 Minn. 1939
    To sustain the contention that the evidence does not warrant a finding that defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries, his counsel cite and rely on Cosgrove v. McGonagle, 196 Minn. 6 , ; Wedel v. Johnson, 196 Minn. 170 , ; Bauer v. Miller Motor Co. 197 Minn. 352 , ; Szyperski v. Swift & Co. 198 Minn. 154 , .
  • Eystad v. Stambaugh 281 N.W. 526 Minn. 1938
  • Eystad v. Stambaugh 281 N.W. 526 Minn. 1938
    The rule we have repeatedly applied is (Cosgrove v. McGonagle, 196 Minn. 6, 13 , ): *396 “In such situation the law is that ‘one, suddenly confronted by a peril, through no fault of his own, who in the attempt to escape does not choose the best or safest way, should not be held negligent because of such choice unless it was so hazardous that the ordinarily prudent person w
  • Dehen v. Berning 270 N.W. 602 Minn. 1936
  • Dehen v. Berning 270 N.W. 602 Minn. 1936
    Counsel for both parties seem to get considerable comfort from, and both cite and rely upon, Cosgrove v. McGonagle, 196 Minn. 6 , .
  • Swanson v. Swanson 265 N.W. 39 Minn. 1936
  • Swanson v. Swanson 265 N.W. 39 Minn. 1936
    Cosgrove v. McGonagle, 196 Minn. 6 , 264 N.W.