Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Akers v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co., 60 N.W. 669.

36 citing documents.

Steffey v. Soo Line Railroad 498 N.W.2d 304 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Steffey v. Soo Line Railroad 498 N.W.2d 304 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
P., M. & O. Ry., 58 Minn. 540, 546 , 60 N.W.
Lorshbough v. Township of Buzzle 258 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 1977
Lorshbough v. Township of Buzzle 258 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 1977
Co., 58 Minn. 540, 544 , 60 N.W.
Plain v. Plain 240 N.W.2d 330 Minn. 1976
Plain v. Plain 240 N.W.2d 330 Minn. 1976
Co. 58 Minn. 540, 544 , Jacks v. Jacks, 140 Cal.
Vogt v. Johnson 153 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 1967
Vogt v. Johnson 153 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 1967
Co. 58 Minn. 540 , ; Christianson v. Chicago, St.
Rasmussen v. Prudential Insurance Company 152 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1967
Rasmussen v. Prudential Insurance Company 152 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1967
Co. 58 Minn. 540, 544 , .
Austin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. 152 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1967
Austin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. 152 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1967
Co. 58 Minn. 540 , ; Christianson v. Chicago, St.
Jacobs v. Draper 142 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 1966
Jacobs v. Draper 142 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 1966
Co. 58 Minn. 540, 544 , , made an analysis of what constitutes actionable negligence quite appropriate to the solution of the legal questions involved in this case.
Graeber v. Anderson 53 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1952
Graeber v. Anderson 53 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1952
Co. 58 Minn. 540 , , there was no landlord-tenant relationship, and the use made by the trespassers could not be said to be ordinary and reasonable.
Cooper v. Hoeglund 22 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1946
Cooper v. Hoeglund 22 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1946
Co. 58 Minn. 540 , ; 38 Am.
Woodring v. Pastoret 21 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 1945
Woodring v. Pastoret 21 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 1945
Co. 58 Minn. 540, 544 , , “is the failure to discharge a legal duty to the person injured.
Westlund v. Iverson 191 N.W. 253 Minn. 1922
Westlund v. Iverson 191 N.W. 253 Minn. 1922
Co. 58 Minn. 540 , ; Anderson v. Settergren, 100 Minn. 294 , ; Clapper v. Dickinson, 137 Minn. 415 , .
McGillivray v. Great Northern Railway Co. 176 N.W. 200 Minn. 1920
McGillivray v. Great Northern Railway Co. 176 N.W. 200 Minn. 1920
Co. 58 Minn. 540, 544 , .
Everett v. Great Northern Railway Co. 111 N.W. 281 Minn. 1907
Anderson v. Settergren 111 N.W. 279 Minn. 1907
Anderson v. Settergren 111 N.W. 279 Minn. 1907
Everett v. Great Northern Railway Co. 111 N.W. 281 Minn. 1907
Co., 58 Minn. 540 , ; Gibson v. Leonard, 143 Ill.
Ellington v. Great Northern Railway Co. 104 N.W. 827 Minn. 1905
Ellington v. Great Northern Railway Co. 104 N.W. 827 Minn. 1905
Co., 58 Minn. 540 , ; Wickenburg v. Minneapolis, St P. & S. S. M. Ry.
Wickenburg v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 102 N.W. 713 Minn. 1905
Wickenburg v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 102 N.W. 713 Minn. 1905
Lauritsen v. American Bridge Co. 92 N.W. 475 Minn. 1902
Lauritsen v. American Bridge Co. 92 N.W. 475 Minn. 1902
Co., 58 Minn. 540 , ; Emery v. Minneapolis Ind.
De Blois v. Great Northern Railway Co. 73 N.W. 637 Minn. 1898
De Blois v. Great Northern Railway Co. 73 N.W. 637 Minn. 1898
The whole law upon the subject was well stated in Akers v. Chichgo, 58 Minn. 540, 545 , , thus: “Whenever the owner or occupant, in the absence of malice, has been held liable because of the unsafe condition of his premises, according 'to every well-considered case, The gist of the liability consists in the fact that the person did not act merely for his own convenience and pleasure