Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kolatz v. Kelly, 69 N.W.2d 649.

73 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Johannes Marliem Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Johannes Marliem Minn. Ct. App. 2015
before entering [an] intersection.” Cf. Kolatz v. Kelly, 244 Minn. 163, 171, (stating that “after a car has once stopped for a through street in response to the stop sign and the motorist has exercised the ordinary and reasonable care required under § 169.20, subd.
Bermel v. Auge 574 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Bermel v. Auge 574 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Kolatz v. Kelly, 244 Minn. 163, 171 , the supreme court held that the forfeiture provision of Minn. Stat. § 169.20 , subd.
Baber v. Dill 531 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1995
Baber v. Dill 531 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1995
Kolatz v. Kelly, 244 Minn. 163, 166
Strong v. Richfield State Agency, Inc. 460 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Strong v. Richfield State Agency, Inc. 460 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Kolatz v. Kelly, 244 Minn. 163, 166 , quoted in Elias v. City of St.
Carlson v. Powlish 428 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Carlson v. Powlish 428 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Kolatz v. Kelly, 244 Minn. 163, 166
Angell v. Enfield 392 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Angell v. Enfield 392 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
3, was thoroughly explored in Kolatz v. Kelly, 244 Minn. 163 , where the supreme court said: While the operators of cars upon [through] highways have the right of way by reason of the through street or highway, such operators are nevertheless bound to operate them with reasonable care as to the traffic entering from the side streets.
Peterson v. Little-Giant Glencoe Portable Elevator Division of Dynamics Corp. of America 366 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 1985
Peterson v. Little-Giant Glencoe Portable Elevator Division of Dynamics Corp. of America 366 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 1985
Kolatz v. Kelly, 244 Minn. 163, 166 , Elias v. City of St.
Elias v. City of St. Paul 350 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Elias v. City of St. Paul 350 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
at 7 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), we said this action is appropriate “only in the exceptional case.” The Minnesota Supreme Court said in Kolatz v. Kelly, 244 Minn. 163, 166 , : While the right to direct a verdict also involves the duty to do so, nevertheless, it is a right to be cautiously and sparingly exercised.
Otterness v. Horsley 263 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 1978
Otterness v. Horsley 263 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 1978
It is the province of the jury to resolve such conflicting testimony, Kolatz v. Kelly, 244 Minn. 163 , and we cannot say that a determination that plaintiff was over 300 feet from the intersection would be unreasonable.
Sullivan v. F. D. Chapman Construction Co. 231 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 1975
Sullivan v. F. D. Chapman Construction Co. 231 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 1975
3 Kolatz v. Kelly, 244 Minn. 163 , Hanson v. Homeland Ins.
Eklund v. Lund 222 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 1974
Eklund v. Lund 222 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 1974
1, Anderson v. Mid-Motors, Inc. 256 Minn. 157 , Kolatz v. Kelly, 244 Minn. 163 , we now hold that the forfeiture provision applies with equal force to a motorist approaching an intersection protected by a yield sign.” If the statute is reasonably applicable to intersections controlled by yield signs, we see little basis for distinguishing the statute as to intersections c
Usher v. Allstate Insurance Company 218 N.W.2d 201 Minn. 1974
Usher v. Allstate Insurance Company 218 N.W.2d 201 Minn. 1974
See, Kolatz v. Kelly, 244 Minn. 163
Cooper v. Friesen 207 N.W.2d 742 Minn. 1973
Cooper v. Friesen 207 N.W.2d 742 Minn. 1973
1, Anderson v. Mid-Motors Inc. 256 Minn. 157 , Kolatz v. Kelly, 244 Minn. 168 , we now hold that the forfeiture provision applies with equal force to a motorist approaching an intersection protected by a yield sign.
Fisher v. Edberg 176 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1970
Fisher v. Edberg 176 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1970
See, also, Ranum v. Swenson, 220 Minn. 170 , 19 N. W. (2d) 327 ; Kolatz v. Kelly, 244 Minn. 163 , 69 N. W. (2d) 649 .
Shafer Ex Rel. Shafer v. Gaylord 176 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1970
Wm. Mueller & Sons v. Chanhassen Redi Mix 140 N.W.2d 326 Minn. 1966
Wm. Mueller & Sons v. Chanhassen Redi Mix 140 N.W.2d 326 Minn. 1966
Kolatz v. Kelly, 244 Minn. 163 , 69 N. W. (2d) 649 ; Coleman v. Huebener, 269 Minn. 198 , 130 N. W. (2d) 322 ; Lee v. Smith, 253 Minn. 401 , 92 N. W. (2d) 117 ; Olson v. Evert, 224 Minn. 528 , 28 N. W. (2d) 753 .
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 .
Elk River Concrete Products Co. v. American Casualty Co. of Reading 129 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1964
Elk River Concrete Products Co. v. American Casualty Co. of Reading 129 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1964
8 See, Olson v. Evert, 224 Minn. 528 , 28 N. W. (2d) 753 ; Kolatz v. Kelly, 244 Minn. 163 , 69 N. W. (2d) 649 ; Kernan v. St.
Pogalz v. Kenna 126 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1964
Pogalz v. Kenna 126 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1964
Kolatz v. Kelly, 244 Minn. 163 , 69 N. W. (2d) 649 .
Martinco v. Hastings 122 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 1963
Martinco v. Hastings 122 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 1963
See, Kolatz v. Kelly, 244 Minn. 163 , 69 N. W. (2d) 649 ; Erickson v. Strickler, 252 Minn. 351 , 90 N. W. (2d) 232 ; 13B Dunnell, Dig.
Gustafson v. Schilt 116 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1962
Gustafson v. Schilt 116 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1962
Co. 232 Minn. 403 , 45 N. W. (2d) 637 ; Kolatz v. Kelly, 244 Minn. 163 , 69 N. W. (2d) 649 .
Wagenhals v. Flint 114 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1962
Grussing v. Binger 114 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 1962
Grussing v. Binger 114 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 1962
Co. 232 Minn. 403 , 45 N. W. (2d) 637 ; Kolatz v. Kelly, 244 Minn. 163 , 69 N. W. (2d) 649 .
Wagenhals v. Flint 114 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1962
Mattfeld v. Nester, 226 Minn. 106, 119 , 32 N. W. (2d) 291, 301 , 3 A. L. R. (2d) 909; Martin v. Reibel, 227 Minn. 106, 110 , 34 N. W. (2d) 290, 292 ; Kolatz v. Kelly, 244 Minn. 163, 171 , 69 N. W. (2d) 649, 655 .
Majerus v. Guelsow 113 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1962
Majerus v. Guelsow 113 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1962
Kolatz v. Kelly, 244 Minn. 163 , 69 N. W. (2d) 649 .
Ladewig v. Glencoe Mills, Inc. 113 N.W.2d 80 Minn. 1962
Ladewig v. Glencoe Mills, Inc. 113 N.W.2d 80 Minn. 1962
The motion for a directed verdict should be granted only in those unequivocal cases where in the light of the evidence as a whole it would clearly be the duty of the trial court to set aside a contrary verdict as being manifestly against the entire evidence, or where it would be contrary to the law applicable to the case.” See, also, Kolatz v. Kelly, 244 Minn. 163 , 69 N. W. (2d) 649 ; 19 Dunnell, Dig.
Jensen v. Aaby 111 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1961