DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Schroepfer v. City of Sleepy Eye, 10 N.W.2d 398.

28 citing documents.

  • 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 verdict in plaintiff’s favor was affirmed on appeal, the court holding that “Contributory negligence is not established merely by showing that the deceased worked in a place of danger, it being necessary to show that his conduct was negligent in the face of the danger, which is a question for the jury.” In Schroepfer v. City of Sleepy Eye, 215 Minn. 525 , 10 N. W. (2d) 398 , decedent was employed in an elevator at Sleepy Eye, performing miscellaneous work.
  • Erlandson v. Northern States Power Co. 104 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1960
  • Erlandson v. Northern States Power Co. 104 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1960
    d to provide such insulation or other safeguards only at those places where in the exercise of reasonable prudence and foresight it ought to anticipate that injury might result to some one in the absence of such protection.” See, also, Anderson v. Northern States Power Co. 236 Minn. 196 , 52 N. W. (2d) 434 ; Knutson v. Lambert, 235 Minn. 328 , 51 N. W. (2d) 580 ; Schroepfer v. City of Sleepy Eye, 215 Minn. 525 , 10 N. W. (2d) 398 ; Keep v. Otter Tail Power Co. 201 Minn. 475 , ; Kieffer v. Wiscon
  • Martin v. Northern States Power Co. 72 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 1955
  • Martin v. Northern States Power Co. 72 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 1955
    See, Schroepfer v. City of Sleepy Eye, 215 Minn. 525 , 10 N. W. (2d) 398 .
  • Schneider v. the Texas Co. 69 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1955
  • Schneider v. the Texas Co. 69 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1955
    Lack of a label under the circumstances presented in the instant case was not prejudicial error for, as stated in Schroepfer v. City of Sleepy Eye, 215 Minn. 525, 532 , 10 N. W. (2d) 398 , 402: “* * * Substance rather than name controls.
  • Ahlstrom v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railroad 68 N.W.2d 873 Minn. 1955
  • Ahlstrom v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railroad 68 N.W.2d 873 Minn. 1955
    Cf. Theisen v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 200 Minn. 515 , ; Schroepfer v. City of Sleepy Eye, 215 Minn. 525 , 10 N. W. (2d) 398 .
  • Zuercher v. Northern Jobbing Co. 66 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1954
  • Zuercher v. Northern Jobbing Co. 66 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1954
    10 See, Theisen v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 200 Minn. 515 , ; Schroepfer v. City of Sleepy Eye, 215 Minn. 525 , 10 N. W. (2d) 398 .
  • Anderson v. Northern States Power Co. 52 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 1952
  • Anderson v. Northern States Power Co. 52 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 1952
    See, Neumann v. Interstate Power Co. 179 Minn. 46 , ; Faribault v. Northern States Power Co. 188 Minn. 514 , ; Keep v. Otter Tail Power Co. 201 Minn. 475 , ; and Schroepfer v. City of Sleepy Eye, 215 Minn. 525, 529 , 10 N. W. (2d) 398, 401 , where, after stating the general rule, we said: “Conversely, where a distributor of electricity places its wires in such a way that there is no reasonable ground to anticipate that people will come in dangerous proximity to them, there is no breach of legal
  • Schrader v. Kriesel 45 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1950
  • Schrader v. Kriesel 45 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1950
    * * * Reasonable inspection during such use is a duty incident to the maintenance of the premises.” 10 The statement has been cited with approval in Schroepfer v. City of Sleepy Eye, 215 Minn. 525, 532 , 10 N. W. (2d) 398, 402 ; Landru v. Stensrud, 219 Minn. 227, 229 , 17 N. W. (2d) 322, 323 ; Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323, 325 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213, 215 .
  • Rue v. Wendland 33 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1948
  • Rue v. Wendland 33 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1948
    Greenwald v. Northern States Power Co. 226 Minn. 216 , 32 N. W. (2d) 320 ; Schroepfer v. City of Sleepy Eye, 215 Minn. 525 , 10 N. W. (2d) 398 ; 4 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Grabow v. Hanson 32 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1948
  • Grabow v. Hanson 32 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1948
    See, also, Hubenette v. Ostby, 213 Minn. 349 , 6 N. W. (2d) 637 ; Schroepfer v. City of Sleepy Eye, 215 Minn. 525 , 10 N. W. (2d) 398 ; Mosheuvel v. District of Columbia, 191 U. S. 247 , 24 S. Ct. 57 , 48 L. ed. 170; H. E. & W. T. Ry.
  • Greenwald v. Northern States Power Co. 32 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1948
  • Greenwald v. Northern States Power Co. 32 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1948
    Schroepfer v. City of Sleepy Eye, 215 Minn. 525 , 10 N. W. (2d) 398 ; Keep v. Otter Tail Power Co. 201 Minn. 475 , ; Faribault v. Northern States Power Co. 188 Minn. 514 , ; Neumann v. Interstate Power Co. 179 Minn. 46 , ; Bunten v. Eastern Minnesota Power Co. 178 Minn. 604 , ; 2 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Johnson v. Evanski 22 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 1946
  • Johnson v. Evanski 22 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 1946
    3 This statement was cited with approval in Schroepfer v. City of Sleepy Eye, 215 Minn. 525, 532 , 10 N. W. (2d) 398, 402 , and in Landru v. Stens- *326 rud, 219 Minn. 227, 229 , 17 N. W. (2d) 322 , 323.
  • Landru v. Stensrud 17 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 1945
  • Landru v. Stensrud 17 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 1945
    466, comments c, d; Prosser, Torts, § 51, p. 379.” This statement was cited with approval in Schroepfer v. City of Sleepy Eye, 215 Minn. 525, 532 , 10 N. W. (2d) 398, 402 .
  • 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
    Schroepfer v. City of Sleepy Eye, 215 Minn. 525 , 10 N. W. (2d) 398 .