DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Abraham v. Byman, 8 N.W.2d 231.

27 citing documents.

  • Wallace v. Nelson 178 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 1970
  • Wallace v. Nelson 178 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 1970
    We pointed out that, although earlier cases had strictly applied this rule (Hermanson v. Switzer, 188 Minn. 455 , ; Chandler v. Buchanan, supra), later cases (Abraham v. Byman, 214 Minn. 355 , 8 N. W. [2d] 231; Ranum v. Swenson, 220 Minn. 170 , 19 N. W. [2d] 327; Wagenhals v. Flint, 262 Minn. 326 , 114 N. W. [2d] 641) held that the issue presents a question of fact for the jury “except where it is clearly apparent to all reasonable minds there were no circumstances on which to justify a failure
  • Lapides v. Wagenhals 173 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 1969
  • Lapides v. Wagenhals 173 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 1969
    See, Abraham v. Byman, 214 Minn. 355 , 8 N. W. (2d) 231 ; Ranum v. Swenson, 220 Minn. 170 , 19 N. W. (2d) 327 ; Wagenhals v. Flint, 262 Minn. 326 , 114 N. W. (2d) 641 .
  • Roberts v. Kettner 161 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 1968
  • Roberts v. Kettner 161 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 1968
    The court in the Ranum case said ( 220 Minn. 174 , 19 N. W. [2d] 330): “We expressly reject the policy of applying arbitrary standards of behavior amounting in effect to rules of law to all cases without regard to surrounding circumstances.” Also see Shoop v. Peterson, 237 Minn. 61 , 53 N. W. (2d) 633 ; and Abraham v. Byman, 214 Minn. 355 , 8 N. W. (2d) 231 , where this court stated: “Since standards of prudent conduct, especially in negligence cases, are generally for jury determination, courts
  • Coenen v. Buckman Building Corporation 153 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1967
  • Coenen v. Buckman Building Corporation 153 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1967
    * * * * * * * * “The arbitrary principle that failure to see that which is in plain sight necessarily constitutes contributory negligence as a matter of law without regard to surrounding circumstances, has now been rejected.” See, Ranum v. Swanson, 220 Minn. 170 , 19 N. W. (2d) 327 ; Abraham v. Byman, 214 Minn. 355 , 8 N. W. (2d) 231 , and other cases cited in 13B Dunnell, Dig.
  • Boraas v. Carlson 127 N.W.2d 439 Minn. 1964
  • Boraas v. Carlson 127 N.W.2d 439 Minn. 1964
    Ranum v. Swenson, 220 Minn. 170 , 19 N. W. (2d) 327 ; Merritt v. Stuve, 215 Minn. 44 , 9 N. W. (2d) 329 ; Abraham v. Byman, 214 Minn. 355 , 8 N. W. (2d) 231 ; Olson v. Byam, 176 Minn. 619 , .
  • Kolatz v. Kelly 69 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1955
  • Kolatz v. Kelly 69 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1955
    & Supp. § 9764; Abraham v. Byman, 214 Minn. 355 , 8 N. W. (2d) 231 ; Montague v. Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co. 194 Minn. 546 , ; LeVasseur v. Minneapolis St.
  • Sundeen v. Barthel 63 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 1954
  • Nash v. Christenson 62 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 1954
  • Nash v. Christenson 62 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 1954
    Abraham v. Byman, 214 Minn. 355 , 8 N. W. (2d) 231 ; 1 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Shoop v. Peterson 53 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 1952
  • Overruled Shoop v. Peterson 53 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 1952
    W. 581 ; DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , ; and Sorenson v. Sander- *64 son, 176 Minn. 299 , , that the driver of a motor vehicle who looks and does not see that which is in plain sight and which he ought to have seen was guilty of negligence as a matter of law, that doctrine was overruled in Ranum v. Swenson, 220 Minn. 170 , 19 N. W. (2d) 327 , and Ahraham v. Byman, 214 Minn. 355 , 8 N. W. (2d) 231 , to the extent that the mere failure on the part of a motorist who looks and does not see that w
  • Delyea v. Goossen 32 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 1948
  • Moore v. Kujath 29 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 1947
  • Moore v. Kujath 29 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 1947
    Defendant cites Ranum v. Swenson, 220 Minn. 170 , , and Abraham v. Byman, 214 Minn. 355 , , as authority for the so-called repudiation .
  • Solosky v. J. A. Johnson Co. 27 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 1947
  • Solosky v. J. A. Johnson Co. 27 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 1947
    “The issue of negligence is generally a fact question for the jury to determine.” Merritt v. Stuve, 215 Minn. 44, 55 , 9 N. W. (2d) 329, 334 ; Abraham v. Byman, 214 Minn. 355 , 8 N. W. (2d) 231 .
  • Ranum v. Swenson 19 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1945
  • Ranum v. Swenson 19 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1945
    ct that “A verdict cannot be permitted to rest upon testimony of a party having good eyesight that he did not see a moving automobile then in plain sight at a place to which his vision is specially directed.” It should be noted that “both cases have been limited, distinguished, and explained to such an extent in later, cases as almost to make them unrecognizable as authorities.” Abraham v. Byman, 214 Minn. 355, 360 , 8 N. W. (2d) 231, 234 .
  • State Ex Rel. Laurisch v. Johnson 12 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1943
  • Merritt v. Stuve 9 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1943
  • Merritt v. Stuve 9 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1943
    Abraham v. Byman, 214 Minn. 355 , 8 N. W. (2d) 231 ; 4 Dunnell, Dig.