Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Nees v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co., 16 N.W.2d 758.

75 citing documents.

Audette v. Lindahl 42 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 1950
Co. 218 Minn. 532 , 16 N. W. (2d) 758 ; Leitner v. Pacific Gamble Robinson Co. 223 Minn. 260 , 26 N. W. (2d) 228 .
Dose v. Yager 42 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 1950
Dose v. Yager 42 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 1950
Co. 218 Minn. 532 , 16 N. W. (2d) 758 .
Peterson v. Jewel Tea Co. Inc. 38 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1949
Peterson v. Jewel Tea Co. Inc. 38 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1949
Co. 218 Minn. 532 , 16 N. W. (2d) 758 .
Benson v. Hoenig 37 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1949
Benson v. Hoenig 37 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1949
Co. 218 Minn. 532 , 16 N. W. (2d) 758 ; Peterson v. Minneapolis St.
Peterson v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 31 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1948
Peterson v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 31 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1948
Co. 218 Minn. 532, 536 , 16 N. W. (2d) 758 , 761: “* * * That defendant’s vehicle was a streetcar instead of a motor vehicle, as in the cited cases, would not absolve the motorman from the common-law duty to exercise due care with respect to other traffic.” As a general rule, error in a charge is ground for a new trial unless it is cle
Leitner v. Pacific Gamble Robinson Co. 26 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 1947
Leitner v. Pacific Gamble Robinson Co. 26 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 1947
Co. 218 Minn. 532, 535 , 16 N. W. (2d) 758, 761 , we held that fact questions on the subject of negligence, contributory negligence, and causation are for the determination of the jury, and that “It is only where different minds can reasonably arrive at but one result that these or any fact issues become questions of law justifying a t
Hall v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 26 N.W.2d 178 Minn. 1947
Hall v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 26 N.W.2d 178 Minn. 1947
Co. 218 Minn. 532, 540 , 16 N. W. (2d) 758, 763 , we held: “That there may be more than one proximate cause of an injury is accepted doctrine.
Cooper v. Hoeglund 22 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1946
Cooper v. Hoeglund 22 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1946
Co. 218 Minn. 532 , 16 N. W. (2d) 758 (stopping without giving proper signal); Martini v. Johnson, 204 Minn. 556 , , and Peterson v. Doll, 184 Minn. 213 , (driving more closely than is reasonable and prudent); Schmitt v. Emery, 211 Minn. 547 , 2 N. W. (2d) 413 , 139 A. L. R. 1242, and Geisen v. Luce, 185 Min
Nees v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 22 N.W.2d 164 Minn. 1946
Nees v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 22 N.W.2d 164 Minn. 1946
Co. 218 Minn. 532 , 16 N. W. (2d) 758 .
Johnson v. Evanski 22 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 1946
Johnson v. Evanski 22 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 1946
Co. 218 Minn. 532 , 16 N. W. (2d) 758 ; Restatement, Torts, § 431; 4 Dunnell, Dig.
Jeddeloh v. Hockenhull 18 N.W.2d 582 Minn. 1945
Jeddeloh v. Hockenhull 18 N.W.2d 582 Minn. 1945
Co. 218 Minn. 532 , 16 N. W. (2d) 758 .
Landeen v. Dejung 17 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1945
Landeen v. Dejung 17 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1945
Co. 218 Minn. 532 , 16 N. W. (2d) 758 , supra,.
Travis v. Collett 16 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 1944
Travis v. Collett 16 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 1944
Co. 218 Minn. 532 , 16 N. W. (2d) 758 .