DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lee v. Zaske, 6 N.W.2d 793.

25 citing documents.

  • Fleahman v. Lehman 388 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Fleahman v. Lehman 388 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    See, e.g., Lee v. Zaske, 213 Minn. 244, 248-49 , -96 (1942) (trial court erred in instructing on the emergency rule where “[i]t seems obvious to us that the defendant * * * brought on the emergency by driving * * * at the speed he did with defective brakes”); (emergency rule instructi
  • Nelson v. Henning 354 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Nelson v. Henning 354 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    In a similar case, Lee v. Zaske, 213 Minn. 244 , the Minnesota Supreme Court held that defendant was negligent as a matter of law where defendant had violated the brake statute, produced no evidence to rebut this prima facie evidence of negligence, and the evidence compelled a finding that his negligence in driving at a high speed with defecti
  • Gave v. PYROFAX GAS CORPORATION 143 N.W.2d 242 Minn. 1966
  • Gave v. PYROFAX GAS CORPORATION 143 N.W.2d 242 Minn. 1966
    In Lee v. Zaske, 213 Minn. 244 , 6 N. W. (2d) 793 , the accident was also caused by a brake failure.
  • Lieser v. Northern States Power Co. 128 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1964
  • Lieser v. Northern States Power Co. 128 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1964
    ‘The presumption of due care does not vanish in the absence of evidence showing the conduct of the deceased.’ Lee v. Zaske, 213 Minn. 244, 248 , 6 N. W. (2d) 793, 795 .
  • Aanenson v. Engelson 124 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1963
  • Aanenson v. Engelson 124 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1963
    1 They rely on Lee v. Zaske, 213 Minn. 244 , 6 N. W. (2d) 793 , where a motorist who drove at high speeds knowing that his brakes would not hold at such speeds was held to be negligent as a matter of law.
  • Newcomb v. Meiss 116 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1962
  • Newcomb v. Meiss 116 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1962
    In my opinion he could not be held guilty of contributory negligence under such a state of the evidence.” We said much the same thing in Lee v. Zaske, 213 Minn. 244, 248 , 6 N. W. (2d) 793, 795 , in a somewhat similar situation: “* * * We cannot see how a man of ordinary prudence could reasonably anticipate that any driver would be likely to come speeding through the space between the Wagner and the Streit cars.” There is no merit to the argument that the trial court erred in ins
  • Minder v. Peterson 93 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 1958
  • Minder v. Peterson 93 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 1958
    The evidence in this case in that respect distinguishes the case from Lee v. Zaske, 213 Minn. 244 , 6 N. W. (2d) 793 , upon which plaintiff largely relies, for in that case it conclusively appeared that defendant knew he was driving a vehicle with defective brakes.
  • Kachman v. Blosberg 87 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1958
  • Kachman v. Blosberg 87 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1958
    Anderson v. Gray, 206 Minn. 367 , ; Zickrick v. Strathern, 211 Minn. 329 , 1 N. W. (2d) 134 ; Nicholas v. Minnesota Milk Co. 212 Minn. 333 , 4 N. W. (2d) 84 ; Lee v. Zaske, 213 Minn. 244 , 6 N. W. (2d) 793 ; Anderson v. Davis, 151 Minn. 454 , ; Callahan v. Prewitt, 143 Neb.
  • Shastid v. Shue 77 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1956
  • Shastid v. Shue 77 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1956
    The trial judge instructed the jury that they “may or may not find that an emergency presented itself in this case * * *.” Although it is established that one who has contributed to the predicament with which he was confronted was not entitled to have his case considered under the sudden emergency rule, Lee v. Zaske, 213 Minn. 244 , 6 N. W. (2d) 793 , there appears to be doubt as to whether plaintiff contributed to his predicament.
  • Wojahn v. Faul 64 N.W.2d 140 Minn. 1954
  • State Ex Rel. South St. Paul v. Hetherington 61 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1953
  • State Ex Rel. South St. Paul v. Hetherington 61 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1953
    Cf. Lee v. Zaske, 213 Minn. 244 , 6 N. W. (2d) 793 .
  • Seitzer v. Halverson 42 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1950
  • Seitzer v. Halverson 42 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1950
    Zobel v. Boutelle, 184 Minn. 172 , ; Ind v. Bailey, 198 Minn. 217 , ; Lee v. Zaske, 213 Minn. 244 , 6 N. W. (2d) 793 .
  • Schroepfer v. City of Sleepy Eye 10 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1943
  • Schroepfer v. City of Sleepy Eye 10 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1943
    “The presumption of due care does not vanish in the absence of evidence showing the conduct of the deceased.” Lee v. Zaske, 213 Minn. 244, 248 , 6 N. W. (2d) 793, 795 .