DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 144 N.W.2d 540.

34 citing documents.

  • State v. Everson 749 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2008
  • Reed v. Hinderland 660 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1983
  • Zimmerman Ex Rel. Zimmerman v. Witte Transportation Co. 259 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1977
  • Zimmerman Ex Rel. Zimmerman v. Witte Transportation Co. 259 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1977
    See, State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111 , Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 274 Minn. 482 , Bauer v. Kummer, 244 Minn. 488
  • Weckerly v. Abear 256 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1977
  • Weckerly v. Abear 256 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1977
    The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the doctrine of Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 274 Minn. 482 , which abolished the rule imputing the contributory negligence of a servant to his master so as to bar the master’s right to recover personal injuries from a negligent third party in automobile negligence cases, applies to an action by a master for property damage?
  • Carlson v. Yellow Cab Co. 242 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 1976
  • Carlson v. Yellow Cab Co. 242 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 1976
    Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. 274 Minn. 482 , stands for the proposition that an innocent employer may, in automobile negligence cases, recover damages from a negligent third party despite the negligence of his employee, but Weber did not hold that findings with respect to the employee’s negligence are unnecessary or gratuitous.
  • Custom Farm Services, Inc. v. Collins 238 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1976
  • Custom Farm Services, Inc. v. Collins 238 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1976
    Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. 274 Minn. 482 , Hurlburt v. Leachman, 126 Minn. 180 , 14A Dunnell, Dig.
  • Bray v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad 232 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 1975
  • Bray v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad 232 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 1975
    The trial court upon reconsidering this issue held that since there was no joint venture, but rather a situation at least analogous to a master-servant relationship, the controlling case would be Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. 274 Minn. 482
  • Smedsrud v. Brown 227 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 1975
  • Smedsrud v. Brown 227 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 1975
    See, Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. 274 Minn. 482
  • Thomas Oil, Inc. v. Onsgaard 215 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1974
  • Thomas Oil, Inc. v. Onsgaard 215 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1974
    Thomas contends that the rule of Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. 274 Minn. 482 , is applicable to corporations as well as to individuals and that the trial court *467 should have ordered judgment in its favor against defendant Mark Onsgaard for the full amount of its property damage.
  • Clay County v. Burlington Northern, Inc. 209 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 1973
  • Clay County v. Burlington Northern, Inc. 209 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 1973
    Plaintiff contends on this appeal 1 that the trial court erred in not applying the holding of this court in Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. 274 Minn. 482 , to the present case.
  • Collins v. Bridgland 206 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1973
  • Collins v. Bridgland 206 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1973
    2 See, Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. 273 Minn. 482 , State v. Jackson, 275 Minn. 462 , State v. Polk, 263 Minn. 209
  • State v. Hoskins 193 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Hoskins 193 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1972
    Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. 274 Minn. 482 , 14 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Company 191 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 1971
  • Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Company 191 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 1971
    1 See, e. g., Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. 274 Minn. 482 , Gardner v. Germain, 264 Minn. 61 , Bauer v. Kummer, 244 Minn. 488 , State v. Gavle, 234 Minn. 186 , Collings v. Northwestern Hospital, 202 Minn. 139 , State v. Cater, 190 Minn. 485 , (
  • Hutchings v. Bourdages 189 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 1971
  • Hutchings v. Bourdages 189 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 1971
    As we observed in Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. 274 Minn. 482, 490 , 144 N. W. (2d) 540, 544 , such right of control is usually “theoretic” for its actual exercise may well be an exercise in futility, if not in fact dangerous.
  • B. F. Griebenow, Inc. v. Anderson 177 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1970
  • B. F. Griebenow, Inc. v. Anderson 177 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1970
    The rule in automobile negligence cases under which the contributory negligence of a servant was imputed to his master in the master’s action against a negligent third party for the master’s own personal injuries or property damage was prospectively overruled (except for the decided case itself) in Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. 274 Minn. 482 , 144 N. W. (2d) 540 , decided July 29, 1966.
  • Weiss v. Great Northern Railway Company 176 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 1970
  • Weiss v. Great Northern Railway Company 176 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 1970
    The city of Coon Rapids has urged that we consider the application of the rule of Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. 274 Minn. 482 , 144 N. W. (2d) 540 , to this case.
  • Pierson v. Edstrom 174 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1970
  • Pierson v. Edstrom 174 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1970
    ictions and has been adopted in Restatement, Torts (2d) § 491(1), which states: “Any one of several persons engaged in a joint enterprise, such as to make each member of the group responsible for physical harm to other persons caused by the negligence of any member, is barred from recovery against such other persons by the negligence of any member of the group.” In Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. 274 Minn. 482 , 144 N. W. (2d) 540 , this court abolished the rule that the negligence of a servant
  • Peterson v. City of Minneapolis 173 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1969
  • Peterson v. City of Minneapolis 173 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1969
    Thus, in Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. 274 Minn. 482 , 144 N. W. (2d) 540 , we abandoned the rule that the negligence of a servant is imputed *286 to the master so as to bar the master’s claim for damages against a negligent third party in an automobile case.