Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Licha v. Northern Pacific Railway Co., 276 N.W. 813.

31 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Co. , (“Laws readopte d with a well-established m eaning attached to them by 28 judicial construction are adopted with that meaning and construction.”).
Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc. 681 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc. 681 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Ry., 201 Minn. 427, 431 , 276 N.W.
Haukom v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 132 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1964
Haukom v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 132 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1964
Bigo v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 115 N.W.2d 230 Minn. 1962
Bigo v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 115 N.W.2d 230 Minn. 1962
Seekins v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 103 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 1960
Seekins v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 103 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 1960
Co. 201 Minn. 427 , ; Rhine v. Duluth, M. & I. R. Ry.
State v. City of Duluth 56 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1952
State v. City of Duluth 56 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1952
Co. 201 Minn. 427 , ; Clark v. Baxter, 98 Minn. 256 , ; State ex rel.
Leisy v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 40 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1950
Leisy v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 40 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1950
Co. 201 Minn. 427 , ; 5 Dunnell, Dig.
Blaske v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 37 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1949
Blaske v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 37 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1949
Co. 201 Minn. 427 , ; Crosby v. G. N. Ry.
Olson v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 5 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 1942
Olson v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 5 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 1942
Co. 201 Minn. 427 , , where plaintiff was also a guest passenger in the car colliding with defendant’s train.
Rhine v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 297 N.W. 852 Minn. 1941
Rhine v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 297 N.W. 852 Minn. 1941
Co. 201 Minn. 427 , ; Munkel v. C. M. St.
Krause v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 290 N.W. 294 Minn. 1940
Engberg v. Great Northern Railway Co. 290 N.W. 579 Minn. 1940
Krause v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 290 N.W. 294 Minn. 1940
Engberg v. Great Northern Railway Co. 290 N.W. 579 Minn. 1940
Co. 201 Minn. 427 , , this Avas an extra-hazardous crossing, and so the jury (rather than the railroad and warehouse commission) could determine what Avas needed in the way of protection.
Sullivan v. Boone 286 N.W. 350 Minn. 1939
Sullivan v. Boone 286 N.W. 350 Minn. 1939
Carlson v. Peterson 284 N.W. 847 Minn. 1939
Carlson v. Peterson 284 N.W. 847 Minn. 1939
Massmann v. Great Northern Railway Co. 282 N.W. 815 Minn. 1938
Massmann v. Great Northern Railway Co. 282 N.W. 815 Minn. 1938
Co. 201 Minn. 427 , , was handed *173 down, and the plaintiff, who had at that time rested her case, was allowed to reopen it and present additional testimony in an endeavor to show that the crossing was an extra-hazardous one requiring more protection than that offered by the statutory crossing sign erected some years be
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
Co. 201 Minn. 427 , ; Crosby v. G. N. Ry.