Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Roeck v. Halvorson, 95 N.W.2d 172.

26 citing documents.

W.G.O. v. Crandall 640 N.W.2d 344 Minn. 2002
W.G.O. v. Crandall 640 N.W.2d 344 Minn. 2002
254 Minn. 82, 88 , (citations omitted); see also Emerson v. Eystad, 288 Minn. 401, 406 , Roeck v. Halvorson, 254 Minn. 394, 398 , -76 (1959).
Gertken v. Farmers Elevator of Kensington, Minnesota, Inc. 411 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Gertken v. Farmers Elevator of Kensington, Minnesota, Inc. 411 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Roeck v. Halvorson, 254 Minn. 394, 397
Price v. Amdal 256 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1977
Price v. Amdal 256 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1977
In Roeck v. Halvorson, 254 Minn. 394 , we held that the statute did not preclude a trial judge from instructing a jury, in appropriate circumstances, that, as a matter of law, the presumption of due care had been rebutted.
Steinhaus v. Adamson 201 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 1972
Steinhaus v. Adamson 201 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 1972
Similarly, in Roeck v. Halvorson, 254 Minn. 394 , 44 Minn. L. Rev. 352 , there is a statement which would indicate that the presumption has some evidentiary value.
Emerson v. Eystad 181 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1970
Emerson v. Eystad 181 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1970
Minn. 82, 88 , 93 N. W. (2d) 699 , 705: “* * * Where the evidence is such that the jury may find either way on the question of whether a litigant has created an emergency, it is proper to instruct the jury on the emergency rule with directions that it is to be applied only if the jury finds that the emergency was not created by the one who seeks to invoke the rule.” See, also, Roeck v. Halvorson, 254 Minn. 394 , 95 N. W. (2d) 172 ; Trudeau v. Sina Contracting Co. Inc. 241 Minn. 79 , 62 N. W. (2d
Benson v. Dunham 174 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1970
Benson v. Dunham 174 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1970
Roeck v. Halvorson, 254 Minn. 394 , 95 N. W. (2d) 172 ; Krafft v. Hirt, 260 Minn. 296 , 110 N. W. (2d) 14 ; Lambach v. Northwestern Refining Co. Inc. 261 Minn. 115 , 111 N. W. (2d) 345 .
Lustik v. Rankila 131 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1964
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
It also argues that the statutory presumption of due care in decedent’s favor does not preclude a finding of contributory negligence as a matter of law, citing Roeck v. Halvorson, 254 Minn. 394 , 95 N. W. (2d) 172 .
Daugherty v. May Brothers Co. 121 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1963
Daugherty v. May Brothers Co. 121 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1963
Compare Roeck v. Halvorson, 254 Minn. 394, 398 , 95 N. W. (2d) 172, 176 , where this court approved the giving of an instruction on the emergency rule, saying: “* * * It appears to us that there may have been another alternative available.
Lambach v. Northwestern Refining Co. Inc. 111 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 1961
Krafft v. Hirt 110 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1961
Krafft v. Hirt 110 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1961
The problem here is analogous to that raised in Roeck v. Halvorson, 254 Minn. 394 , 95 N. W. (2d) 172 .
Lott v. Davidson 109 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 1961
Lott v. Davidson 109 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 1961
6 This statute has been considered by this court in three recent appeals: Ekstrom v. Harmon, 256 Minn. 166 , 98 N. W. (2d) 241 ; Roeck v. Halvorson, 254 Minn. 394 , 95 N. W. (2d) 172 ; and Lambach v. Northwestern Refining Co. Inc. 261 Minn. 115 , 111 N. W. (2d) 345 .
State v. Keaton 104 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1960
State v. Keaton 104 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1960
Co. 206 Minn. 562 , ; *364 Roeck v. Halvorson, 254 Minn. 394 , 95 N. W. (2d) 172 ; Lynghaug v. Payte, 247 Minn. 186 , 76 N. W. (2d) 660 , 56 A. L. R. (2d) 1090; Kath v. Kath, 238 Minn. 120 , 55 N. W. (2d) 691 ; Knuth v. Murphy, 237 Minn. 225 , 54 N. W. (2d) 771 .
State v. Higgin 99 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1959
State v. Higgin 99 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1959
7 See, also, Roeck v. Halvorson, 254 Minn. 394 , 95 N. W. (2d) 172 ; Lynghaug v. Payte, 247 Minn. 186 , 76 N. W. (2d) 660 , 56 A. L. R. (2d) 1090; Kath v. Kath, 238 Minn. 120 , 55 N. W. (2d) 691 ; Knuth v. Murphy, 237 Minn. 225 , 54 N. W. (2d) 771 .