Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wojtowicz v. Belden, 1 N.W.2d 409.

50 citing documents.

Thorn v. Glass Depot 373 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Thorn v. Glass Depot 373 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Wojtowicz v. Belden, 211 Minn. 461
Konkel v. Erdman 95 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 1959
Konkel v. Erdman 95 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 1959
In Wojtowicz v. Belden, 211 Minn. 461 , 1 N. W. (2d) 409 , this court said that a statute (now M. S. A. 169.21, subd.
Lee v. Smith 92 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 1958
Lee v. Smith 92 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 1958
Wojtowicz v. Belden, 211 Minn. 461 , 1 N. W. (2d) 409 ; Tschida v. Dorle, 235 Minn. 461 , 51 N. W. (2d) 561 ; Borris v. Cox, 245 Minn. 515 , 73 N. W. (2d) 372 .
Borris v. Cox 73 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1955
Borris v. Cox 73 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1955
Thus, in Wojtowicz v. Belden, 211 Minn. 461 , 1 N. W. (2d) 409 , where plaintiff submitted no reasonable justification for walking near the center of a highway in violation of § 169.21, subd.
Kolatz v. Kelly 69 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1955
Kolatz v. Kelly 69 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1955
But see Wojtowicz v. Belden, 211 Minn. 461 , 1 N. W. (2d) 409 , where verdict was justifiably directed on prima facie case in absence of opposing evidence.
Kedrowski v. Czech 69 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1955
Hagen v. Snow 69 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1955
Kedrowski v. Czech 69 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1955
Defendants assert that, this violation being unexplained, the court below should have directed a verdict for defendants under the authority of Wojtowicz v. Belden, 211 Minn. 461 , 1 N. W. (2d) 409 .
Hagen v. Snow 69 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1955
by either or any of the parties to such action or actions shall not be negligence per se but shall be prima facie evidence of negligence only.” 3 Trudeau v. Sina Contracting Co. Inc. 241 Minn. 79 , 62 N. W. (2d) 492 ; Leman v. Standard Oil Co. 238 Minn. 379 , 57 N. W. (2d) 814 ; Martin v. Tracy, 187 Minn. 529 , ; Brodd v. Priem, 236 Minn. 148 , 52 N. W. (2d) 429 ; Wojtowicz v. Belden, 211 Minn. 461 , 1 N. W. (2d) 409 .
Bielinski v. Colwell 65 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 1954
Bielinski v. Colwell 65 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 1954
§ 169.96; Barrett v. Nash Finch Co. 228 Minn. 156 , 36 N. W. (2d) 526 ; Rue v. Wendland, 226 Minn. 449 , 33 N. W. (2d) 593 ; Flitton v. Daleki, 216 Minn. 549 , 13 N. W. (2d) 477 ; Wojtowicz v. Belden, 211 Minn. 461 , 1 N. W. (2d) 409 .
Simon v. Carroll 62 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1954
Simon v. Carroll 62 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1954
Wojtowicz v. Belden, 211 Minn. 461 , 1 N. W. (2d) 409 ; Flaherty v. G. N. Ry.
Pettit v. Lifson 57 N.W.2d 34 Minn. 1953
Pettit v. Lifson 57 N.W.2d 34 Minn. 1953
Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352 , 19 N. W. (2d) 788 ; Schnore v. Baldwin, 217 Minn. 394 , 14 N. W. (2d) 447 ; Wojtowicz v. Belden, 211 Minn. 461 , 1 N. W. (2d) 409 ; Hollander v. Dietrich, 181 Minn. 376 , .
Blumberg v. Palm 56 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1953
Blumberg v. Palm 56 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1953
Wojtowicz v. Belden, 211 Minn. 461 , *254 1 N. W. (2d) 409 ; Topinka v. Minnesota Mut.
Brodd v. Priem 52 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 1952
Brodd v. Priem 52 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 1952
It would have been otherwise if he had shown conditions which would have enabled the jury to say reasonably that it was due care for him to be where he was.” See, also, Hubred v. Wagner, 217 Minn. 129 , 14 N. W. (2d) 115 ; Wojtowicz v. Belden, 211 Minn. 461 , 1 N. W. (2d) 409 .
Demmer v. Grunke 42 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1950
Demmer v. Grunke 42 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1950
Wojtowicz v. Belden, *Page 194 211 Minn. 461 , ; Olson v. D. M. I. R. Ry.
Lee v. Molter 35 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1949
Lee v. Molter 35 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1949
Wojtowicz v. Belden, 211 Minn. 461 , 1 N. W. (2d) 409 .
Olson v. Evert 28 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 1947
Olson v. Evert 28 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 1947
In support of its position, the trial court refers to Wojtowicz v. Belden, 211 Minn. 461 , .
Johnson v. Munsingwear, Inc. 25 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 1946
Johnson v. Munsingwear, Inc. 25 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 1946
Ogren v. City of Duluth, 219 Minn. 555 , 18 N. W. (2d) 535 ; Wojtowicz v. Belden, 211 Minn. 461 , 1 N. W. (2d) 409 .
Cooper v. Hoeglund 22 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1946
Cooper v. Hoeglund 22 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1946
Defendants contend that the violation of the order constitutes prima facie evidence of negligence which, for want of a showing to overcome it, compels a finding of negligence under cases like Wojtowicz v. Belden, 211 Minn. 461 , 1 N. W. (2d) 409 .
Levasseur v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 21 N.W.2d 522 Minn. 1946
Levasseur v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 21 N.W.2d 522 Minn. 1946
But see, Wojtowicz v. Belden, 211 Minn. 461 , 1 N. W. (2d) 409 , where verdict was justifiably directed on prima facie case in absence of opposing evidence.
Hubred v. Wagner 14 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 1944
Hubred v. Wagner 14 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 1944
Wojtowicz v. Belden, 211 Minn. 461 , 1 N. W. (2d) 409 , is cited.
Flitton v. Daleki 13 N.W.2d 477 Minn. 1944
Flitton v. Daleki 13 N.W.2d 477 Minn. 1944
In Wojtowicz v. Belden, 211 Minn. 461, 465 , 1 N. W. (2d) 409, 410 , this court said: “A prima facie case simply means one that prevails in the absence of evidence invalidating it.
Deach v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 9 N.W.2d 735 Minn. 1943
Deach v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 9 N.W.2d 735 Minn. 1943
The case of Wojtowicz v. Belden, 211 Minn. 461 , 1 N. W. (2d) 409 , cited by defendants, involves an adult pedestrian who was acting in direct violation of § 169.21, subd.
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
Wojtowicz v. Belden, 211 Minn. 461 , 1 N. W. (2d) 409 .
Latourelle v. Horan 4 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1942
Latourelle v. Horan 4 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1942
Cf. Wojtowicz v. Belden, 211 Minn. 461 , 1 N. W. (2d) 409 .
Nicholas v. Minnesota Milk Co. 4 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1942
Nicholas v. Minnesota Milk Co. 4 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1942
Wojtowicz v. Belden, 211 Minn. 461 , 1 N. W. (2d) 409 .
Hanson v. Nannestad 3 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1942
Hanson v. Nannestad 3 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1942
Cf. Wojtowicz v. Belden, 211 Minn. 461 , 1 N. W. (2d) 409 .