Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Karsen v. Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co., 11 N.W. 122.

34 citing documents.

Austin v. Rosecke 61 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1953
Austin v. Rosecke 61 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1953
Co. 29 Minn. 12 , ; Maroney v. M. & St.
Maroney v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 144 N.W. 149 Minn. 1913
Maroney v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 144 N.W. 149 Minn. 1913
Co. 29 Minn. 12 , ; Blakeman v. Blakeman, 31 Minn. 396 , ; Koch v. St.
Babcock v. Canadian Northern Railway Co. 136 N.W. 275 Minn. 1912
Babcock v. Canadian Northern Railway Co. 136 N.W. 275 Minn. 1912
Co. 29 Minn. 12 , , Justice Mitchell, in disposing of a contention that there was no evidence that the fire which caused the injury was set by the defendant’s locomotive, said [at page 13] : “The evidence tended to show that the fire started in the grass near and to the leeward of defendant’s track a few minutes after a
State v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co. 113 N.W. 634 Minn. 1907
State v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co. 113 N.W. 634 Minn. 1907
Continental Insurance v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. 107 N.W. 548 Minn. 1906
Continental Insurance v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. 107 N.W. 548 Minn. 1906
Co., 29 Minn. 12 , ); Daly v. Chicago, M. & St.
Burud v. Great Northern Railway Co. 64 N.W. 562 Minn. 1895
Burud v. Great Northern Railway Co. 64 N.W. 562 Minn. 1895
P. R. Co., 29 Minn. 12 , , “to overcome this presumption” of negligence arising from the setting of the fire, “the rebutting evidence must be as broad as the presumption, and must satisfactorily rebut every negligent act or omission which might under the circumstances of the case reasonably or naturally have caused the fire.” A
Cantlon v. Eastern Railway Co. 48 N.W. 22 Minn. 1891
Cantlon v. Eastern Railway Co. 48 N.W. 22 Minn. 1891
Co., 29 Minn. 12 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.
Hoffman v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 45 N.W. 608 Minn. 1890
Hoffman v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 45 N.W. 608 Minn. 1890
Co., 29 Minn. 12 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.
Daly v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 45 N.W. 611 Minn. 1890
Daly v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 45 N.W. 611 Minn. 1890
Co., 29 Minn. 12 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.
Hoffman v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 41 N.W. 301 Minn. 1889
Hoffman v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 41 N.W. 301 Minn. 1889
Co., 29 Minn. 12 , ( 11 N. W. *61 Rep.
Dean v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 40 N.W. 270 Minn. 1888
Dean v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 40 N.W. 270 Minn. 1888
Co., 29 Minn. 12 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.
Nelson v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 28 N.W. 215 Minn. 1886
Nelson v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 28 N.W. 215 Minn. 1886
Co., 29 Minn. 12 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.
Clarke v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 23 N.W. 536 Minn. 1885
Clarke v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 23 N.W. 536 Minn. 1885
Flatt v. D. M. Osborne & Co. 22 N.W. 440 Minn. 1885
Flatt v. D. M. Osborne & Co. 22 N.W. 440 Minn. 1885
Sibley v. Northern Pacific Railroad 21 N.W. 732 Minn. 1884
Sibley v. Northern Pacific Railroad 21 N.W. 732 Minn. 1884
Smith v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 18 N.W. 827 Minn. 1884
Smith v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 18 N.W. 827 Minn. 1884
Johnson v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 16 N.W. 488 Minn. 1883
Johnson v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 16 N.W. 488 Minn. 1883
Co., 29 Minn. 12 ; Sibilrud v. Minneapolis & St.