DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Johnson v. Evanski, 22 N.W.2d 213.

82 citing documents.

  • McDonough v. Newmans Cloak & Suit Co. 77 N.W.2d 59 Minn. 1956
  • McDonough v. Newmans Cloak & Suit Co. 77 N.W.2d 59 Minn. 1956
    Co. Inc. 190 Minn. 294 , ; Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213 .
  • Burns v. Kvernstoen 74 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1955
  • Burns v. Kvernstoen 74 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1955
    Sanders v. Gilbertson, 224 Minn. 546 , 29 N. W. (2d) 357 ; Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213 .
  • Schneider v. the Texas Co. 69 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1955
  • Schneider v. the Texas Co. 69 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1955
    Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213 .
  • 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
    The rule that must govern our consideration of these questions has been stated fully in Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323, 327 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213 , 215: “Taking, as we must, the view of the evidence most favorable to the verdict, a motion for a judgment notwithstanding, whether based on negligence or on contributory negligence, should be denied unless the evidence in support of the verdict, and all reasonable inferences to be drawn ther
  • Standafer v. First National Bank 68 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1955
  • Standafer v. First National Bank 68 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1955
    Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213 .
  • Mayzlik v. Lansing Elevator Co. 63 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 1954
  • Mayzlik v. Lansing Elevator Co. 63 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 1954
    Schrader v. Kriesel, 232 Minn. 238 , 45 N. W. (2d) 395 ; Dragotis v. Kennedy, 190 Minn. 128 , ; Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213 .
  • Messner v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. 57 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 1953
  • Messner v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. 57 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 1953
    Hubbard v. Montgomery Ward & Co. Inc. 221 Minn. 133 , 21 N. W. (2d) 229 ; Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213 .
  • LaCombe v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 51 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 1952
  • LaCombe v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 51 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 1952
    Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213 ; Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40 , 29 N. W. (2d) 448 ; Brulla v. Cassady, 206 Minn. 398 , ; Mardorf v. Duluth-Superior Transit Co. 194 Minn. 537 , ; 3 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Lincoln v. Cambridge-Radisson Co. 49 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1951
  • Lincoln v. Cambridge-Radisson Co. 49 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1951
    The rule that must govern us in considering this appeal has been .stated fully in Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323, 327 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213 , 215: “Taking, as we must, the view of the evidence most favorable to the verdict, a motion for judgment notwithstanding, whether based on negligence or on contributory negligence, should be denied unless the evidence in support of the verdict, and all reasonable inferences to be drawn theref
  • Yeager v. Chapman 45 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 1951
  • Yeager v. Chapman 45 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 1951
    See, Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213 .
  • Schrader v. Kriesel 45 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1950
  • Schrader v. Kriesel 45 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1950
    Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323, 328 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213, 216 .
  • Clark v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. 33 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1948
  • Johnson v. Johnston 33 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 1948
  • Johnson v. Johnston 33 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 1948
    Goldfine v. Johnson, 208 Minn. 449 , ; Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213 .
  • Clark v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. 33 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1948
    Washington & Georgetown R. Co. v. McDade, 135 U. S. 554, 572 , 10 S. Ct. 1044, 1049 , 34 L. ed. 235; Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 318 U. S. 54, 68 , 63 S. Ct. 444, 451 , 87 L. ed. 610, 143 A. L. R. 967.” The Minnesota rule is well expressed in Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323, 327 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213 , 215: “Taking, as we must, the view of the evidence most favorable to the verdict, a motion for a judgment notwithstanding, whether based on negligence or on contributory negligence,
  • Sanders v. Gilbertson 29 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1947
  • Sanders v. Gilbertson 29 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1947
    Goldfine v. Johnson, 208 Minn. 449 , ; Ranum v. Swenson, 220 Minn. 170 , 19 N. W. (2d) 327 ; Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213 .
  • 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
    And in Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323, 328 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213, 216 , where a similar issue was presented, we said: “* * * Causation, like negligence, is a fact issue for the determination of the jury when the facts are in dispute and are susceptible of more than one inference, as here.” On the question of plaintiff’s contributory negligence, the court so
  • Murphy v. Dyson 25 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 1946
  • Murphy v. Dyson 25 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 1946
    See, Griffiths v. Wolfram, 22 Minn. 185 ; Ferraro v. Taylor, 197 Minn. 5 , 265 * Johnson v. Land O’Lakes Motor Co. 218 Minn. 404 , 16 N. W. (2d) 466 ; Walker v. Stecher, 219 Minn. 152 , 17 N. W. (2d) 317 ; Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213 .