Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kraus v. Saffert, 293 N.W. 253.

30 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Samantha Dana Schroeder Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Samantha Dana Schroeder Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, (“Stating the obvious, this era’s drivers are distracted on a regular basis by their apparent need to remain in constant communication on their cell phones.” (quotation omitted)); (in negligence action, defendant noted “sun in his eyes” as cause for collision with pedestrian); WL 1462063, at *1 (Minn. App. Mar.
Oldendorf v. Eide 110 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1961
Oldendorf v. Eide 110 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1961
Kraus v. Saffert, 208 Minn. 220 , .
Kolatz v. Kelly 69 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1955
Kolatz v. Kelly 69 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1955
Norling v. Stempf, 208 Minn. 143 , ; Jeddeloh v. Hockenhull, 219 Minn. 541, 545 , 18 N. W. (2d) 582, 585 ; Demmer v. Grunke, 230 Minn. 188, 194-195 , 42 N. W. (2d) 1, 6 ; Bosell v. Rannestad, 226 Minn. 413, 421 , 33 N. W. (2d) 40, 45 ; Kraus v. Saffert, 208 Minn. 220, 225 , ; see, Johnston v. Jordan, 193 Minn. 298, 300 , .
Hierl v. McClure 56 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1953
Hierl v. McClure 56 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1953
Kraus v. Saffert, 208 Minn. 220 , .
Demmer v. Grunke 42 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1950
Demmer v. Grunke 42 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1950
Bosell v. Rannestad, 226 Minn. 413 , 421 , , 45 ; Kraus v. Saffert, 208 Minn. 220 , 225 , 293 N.W.
Bosell v. Rannestad 33 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1948
Bosell v. Rannestad 33 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1948
“Due care is not determined by the number of times the driver looked, nor by how often, or when, or from where.” Kraus v. Saffert, 208 Minn. 220, 225 , .
Eichten Ex Rel. Eichten v. Central Minnesota Cooperative Power Ass'n 28 N.W.2d 862 Minn. 1947
Eichten Ex Rel. Eichten v. Central Minnesota Cooperative Power Ass'n 28 N.W.2d 862 Minn. 1947
*189 Kraus v. Saffert, 208 Minn. 220 , ; Norling v. Stempf, 208 Minn. 143 , ; Jeddeloh v. Hockenhull, supra.
Jeddeloh v. Hockenhull 18 N.W.2d 582 Minn. 1945
Jeddeloh v. Hockenhull 18 N.W.2d 582 Minn. 1945
Kraus v. Saffert, 208 Minn. 220 , ; Yien Tsiang v. Minneapolis St.
Christenson v. Village of Hibbing 16 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 1944
Christenson v. Village of Hibbing 16 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 1944
Co. 209 Minn. 334 , ; Kraus v. Saffert, 208 Minn. 220 , ; Santee v. Haggart Const. Co. 202 Minn. 361 , .
Peyla v. Duluth, Missabe Iron Range Railroad Co. 15 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1944
Peyla v. Duluth, Missabe Iron Range Railroad Co. 15 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1944
If observation is made before entering the street, failure to look the second time while crossing the *205 street is not necessarily contributory negligence as a matter of law.” The rule was recently applied in Kraus v. Saffert, 208 Minn. 220 , .
Abraham v. Byman 8 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1943
Abraham v. Byman 8 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1943
A similar case upon its facts is that of Kraus v. Saffert, 208 Minn. 220 , , where our prior cases are cited and distinguished at pages 224 and 225.
Yien Tsiang v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 4 N.W.2d 630 Minn. 1942
Yien Tsiang v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 4 N.W.2d 630 Minn. 1942
“Due care is not determined by the number of times the driver looked, nor by how often, or when, or from where.” Kraus v. Saffert, 208 Minn. 220 , .
Litman v. Walso 1 N.W.2d 391 Minn. 1941
Litman v. Walso 1 N.W.2d 391 Minn. 1941
Kraus v. Saffert, 208 Minn. 220, 225 , .
Packar v. Brooks 300 N.W. 400 Minn. 1941
Packar v. Brooks 300 N.W. 400 Minn. 1941
Here, as in Kraus v. Saffert, 208 Minn. 220 , , the question of plaintiff’s contributory negligence in proceeding into the highway when defendant’s car was approaching presented a jury issue.
Neubarth v. Fink 297 N.W. 171 Minn. 1941
Neubarth v. Fink 297 N.W. 171 Minn. 1941
Dahl v. Collette, 206 Minn. 604 , ; Kraus v. Saffert, 208 Minn. 220 , .