Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Moore v. Kujath, 29 N.W.2d 883.

73 citing documents.

Rome v. Rome 239 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1976
Rome v. Rome 239 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1976
3 Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107 , Haugen v. Dick Thayer Motor Co. 253 Minn. 199 , Daugharty v. Anderson, 275 Minn. 371 , Martin v. Bussert, 292 Minn. 29
Riley v. Lake 203 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 1972
Riley v. Lake 203 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 1972
Even before the amendment, we attempted to spell out the rights of drivers of vehicles approaching an intersection at approximately the same time in Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107, *50 112 , , 175 A. L. R. 1007, 1010 (1947).
Martin v. Bussert 193 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 1971
Martin v. Bussert 193 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 1971
See, Daugharty v. Anderson, 275 Minn. 371 , Bellman v. Posnick, 233 Minn. 268 , Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107
Fisher v. Edberg 176 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1970
Fisher v. Edberg 176 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1970
1, defining the rights and duties of motorists at intersections, has been the subject of interpretation in many recent decisions, one of the leading cases being Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107 , 29 N. W. (2d) 883 , 175 A. L. R. 1007.
Kantar v. West End Air Conditioning Co. 144 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 1966
Kantar v. West End Air Conditioning Co. 144 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 1966
In the case of Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107, 115 , 29 N. W. (2d) 883, 887 , 175 A. L. R. 1007, this court, in considering the question whether defendant should have yielded the right-of-way to Moore if he saw him coming, held that he “should have done so as a matter of law unless he was excused because of his testimony that, although the *520 Moore car was in p
Stroesser v. Hopper 129 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 1964
Stroesser v. Hopper 129 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 1964
3 Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107 , 29 N. W. (2d) 883 ; Haugen v. Dick Thayer Motor Co. 253 Minn. 199, 206 , 91 N. W. (2d) 585, 590 ; Kolatz v. Kelly, 244 Minn. 163 , 69 N. W. (2d) 649 ; Boraas v. Carlson, 267 Minn. 478, 482 , 127 N. W. (2d) 439, 442 .
Boraas v. Carlson 127 N.W.2d 439 Minn. 1964
Distinguished Boraas v. Carlson 127 N.W.2d 439 Minn. 1964
Cases relied upon by plaintiffs, Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107 , 29 N. W. (2d) 883 , 175 A. L. R. 1007; Schubitzke v. Minneapolis, St.
Martinco v. Hastings 122 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 1963
Distinguished Martinco v. Hastings 122 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 1963
Plaintiff cites Barrett v. Nash Finch Co. 228 Minn. 156 , 36 N. W. (2d) 526 ; Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107 , 29 N. W. (2d) 883 , 175 A. L. R. 1007; and Paggett v. Travelers Ind.
Curlee v. Steward 379 P.2d 458 Ariz. 1963
Wagenhals v. Flint 114 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1962
Wagenhals v. Flint 114 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1962
The doctrine was more recently clarified in the leading case of Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107 , 29 N. W. (2d) 883 , 175 A. L. R. 1007.
Haugen v. Dick Thayer Motor Co. 91 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1958
Haugen v. Dick Thayer Motor Co. 91 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1958
In Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107, 112 , 29 N. W. (2d) 883, 886 , 175 A. L. R. 1007, 1011, a case involving a similar intersection collision, this court said: “* * * the driver on the left, even though he may reach the intersection first, * * * [must] yield the right of way to the driver on the right *207 in a situation where the two vehicles would co
Norby v. Klukow 81 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 1957
Distinguished Norby v. Klukow 81 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 1957
For example, in Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107 , 29 N. W. (2d) 883 , 175 A. L. R. 1007, the defendant was held negligent as a matter of law where, although he said he looked to the right and saw nothing, the plaintiff’s car at that time was in plain sight approximately 100 feet away.
Kollodge v. F. AND L. APPLIANCES, INC. 80 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1956
Kollodge v. F. AND L. APPLIANCES, INC. 80 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1956
1 See, e. g., Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107 , 29 N. W. (2d) 883 , 175 A. L. R. 1007; First Trust Co. v. Kansas City Life Ins.
Ballweber v. Kleist 78 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1956
Ballweber v. Kleist 78 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1956
Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107 , 29 N. W. (2d) 883 ,175 A. L. R. 1007; Webber v. Seymour, 236 Minn. 10 , 51 N. W. (2d) 825 .
Storbakken v. Soderberg 75 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1956
Storbakken v. Soderberg 75 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1956
He points out that under the evidence the vehicles approached the intersection at approximately the same time and even if the decedent had entered the intersection shortly prior to the defendant he was contributorily negligent as a matter of law under the authorities of Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107 , 29 N. W. (2d) 888 , 175 A. L. R. 1007, and Webber v. Seymour, 236 Minn. 10 , 51 N. W. (2d) 825 .
Kolatz v. Kelly 69 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1955
Kolatz v. Kelly 69 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1955
“A. Yes; if I had seen that car, I could have stopped in a foot or two.” The defendants argued below and now contend that the defendants’ car was approaching the intersection and was in plain sight and that, under the rule of Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107 , 29 N. W. (2d) 883 , 175 A. L. R. 1007, a plaintiff who looks and fails to see what is in plain sight when there are no surrounding circumstances to obstruct his vision or distract him is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Jurgensen v. Schirmer Transportation Co. 64 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 1954
Jurgensen v. Schirmer Transportation Co. 64 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 1954
It is elementary that on this appeal defendant is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable inference from the evidence (Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107 , 29 N. W. [2d] 883, 175 A. L. R. 1007; Schra *162 der v. Kriesel, 232 Minn. 238 , 45 N. W. [2d] 395) and that the determination of the jury must stand unless manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to defendant.
Webster v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 64 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 1954
Webster v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 64 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 1954
Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107 , 29 N. W. (2d) 883 , 175 A. L. R. 1007.
Johnson v. Mancilman 63 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 1954
Johnson v. Mancilman 63 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 1954
“When two vehicles enter an intersection from different highways at approximately the same time the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the vehicle on the right.” Defendant relies on the interpretation of this statute given by this court in Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107, 112 , 29 N. W. (2d) 883, 886 , 175 A. L. R. 1007, as follows: “* * * As we view the two sentences, the second one so modifies the first as to require the driver on the left, even though he may reac
Peterson v. Lang 58 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 1953
Hierl v. McClure 56 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1953
Hierl v. McClure 56 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1953
See, Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107 , 29 N. W. (2d) 883 , 175 A. L. R. 1007; Bellman v. Posnick, 233 Minn. 268 , 46 N. W. (2d) 475 .
Rod v. Jeffords 56 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 1953
Dosdall v. Swift & Co. 56 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 1953
Rod v. Jeffords 56 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 1953
See, also, Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107 , 29 N. W. (2d) 883 , 175 A. L. R. 1007; Webber v. Seymour, 236 Minn. 10 , 51 N. W. (2d) 825 .
Dosdall v. Swift & Co. 56 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 1953
See, also, Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107 , 29 N. W. (2d) 883 , 175 A. L. R. 1007; Webber v. Seymour, 236 Minn. 10 , 51 N. W. (2d) 825 .
Shoop v. Peterson 53 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 1952
Shoop v. Peterson 53 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 1952
Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107 , 29 N. W. (2d) 883 , 175 A. L. R. 1007.
Webber v. Seymour 51 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 1952
Webber v. Seymour 51 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 1952
1, as set out in Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107, 112 , 29 N. W. (2d) 883, 886 , 175 A. L. R. 1007, where this court said: “Obviously, both of the foregoing sentences were placed in the statute by the legislature in an endeavor to promote safety on the highways, and they should be so interpreted.
Bellman v. Posnick 46 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1951
Bellman v. Posnick 46 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1951
This same general problem came before this court in Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107 , 29 N. W. (2d) 883 , 175 A. L. R. 1007—a case in which the jury had returned a verdict in favor of defendant, both in the main action and on defendant’s counterclaim.