Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Brakken v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co., 11 N.W. 124.

50 citing documents.

State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Strom 493 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1992
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Strom 493 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1992
Louis R. Co., 29 Minn. 41, 45 , 11 N.W.
Vacation of Part of Town of Hibbing 204 N.W. 534 Minn. 1925
In re Hull 163 Minn. 439 Minn. 1925
In re Hull 163 Minn. 439 Minn. 1925
Co. 29 Minn. 41 , ; Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164 , ; Rochette v. C. M. & St.
Vacation of Part of Town of Hibbing 204 N.W. 534 Minn. 1925
Co. 29 Minn. 41 , 11 N.W.
State v. Rogers 177 N.W. 358 Minn. 1920
State v. Rogers 177 N.W. 358 Minn. 1920
Co. 29 Minn. 41 , ; Schultz v. Bower, 57 Minn. 493 , 59 N.W.
Hruska v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 119 N.W. 491 Minn. 1909
Hruska v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 119 N.W. 491 Minn. 1909
L. R. Co., 29 Minn. 41 , .
Viebahn v. Board of County Commissioners 104 N.W. 1089 Minn. 1905
Viebahn v. Board of County Commissioners 104 N.W. 1089 Minn. 1905
Co., 29 Minn. 41 , ; Brown v. Watson, 47 Me. 161 .
Gilbert v. Boak Fish Co. 90 N.W. 767 Minn. 1902
Gilbert v. Boak Fish Co. 90 N.W. 767 Minn. 1902
Co., 29 Minn. 41 , ; Lamm v. Chicago, St.
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance v. Sun Insurance Office 88 N.W. 272 Minn. 1901
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance v. Sun Insurance Office 88 N.W. 272 Minn. 1901
Bowers v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. 81 N.W. 208 Minn. 1899
Bowers v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. 81 N.W. 208 Minn. 1899
Co., 29 Minn. 41 , ; Byrne v. Minneapolis & St.
Romer v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 77 N.W. 825 Minn. 1899
Romer v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 77 N.W. 825 Minn. 1899
Jungblum v. Minneapolis, New Ulm & Southwestern Railroad 72 N.W. 971 Minn. 1897
Jungblum v. Minneapolis, New Ulm & Southwestern Railroad 72 N.W. 971 Minn. 1897
Brakken v. Minneapolis, 29 Minn. 41 , ; Carli v. Union, 32 Minn. 101 , ; Byrne v. Minneapolis, 38 Minn. 212
Schultz v. Bower 59 N.W. 631 Minn. 1894
Schultz v. Bower 59 N.W. 631 Minn. 1894
Page v. Mille Lacs Lumber Co. 55 N.W. 608 Minn. 1893
Page v. Mille Lacs Lumber Co. 55 N.W. 608 Minn. 1893
Co., 29 Minn. 41 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.
Aldrich v. Wetmore 53 N.W. 1072 Minn. 1893
Aldrich v. Wetmore 53 N.W. 1072 Minn. 1893
Co., 29 Minn. 41 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.
Hayes v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 49 N.W. 61 Minn. 1891
Hayes v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 49 N.W. 61 Minn. 1891
Co., 29 Minn. 41 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.
Lamm v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 47 N.W. 455 Minn. 1890
Lamm v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 47 N.W. 455 Minn. 1890
Co., 29 Minn. 41 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.
Adams v. Chicago, Burlington & Northern Railroad 39 N.W. 629 Minn. 1888
Adams v. Chicago, Burlington & Northern Railroad 39 N.W. 629 Minn. 1888
Co., 29 Minn. 41 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.
Emmons v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. 36 N.W. 340 Minn. 1888
Emmons v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. 36 N.W. 340 Minn. 1888
Co., 29 Minn. 41 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.
Byrne v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. 36 N.W. 339 Minn. 1888
Distinguished Byrne v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. 36 N.W. 339 Minn. 1888
Co., 29 Minn. 41 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.
Thelan v. Farmer 30 N.W. 670 Minn. 1886
Thelan v. Farmer 30 N.W. 670 Minn. 1886
Co., 29 Minn. 41 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.
Baldwin v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 29 N.W. 5 Minn. 1886
Baldwin v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 29 N.W. 5 Minn. 1886
Co., 29 Minn. 41 , 31 Minn. 45 , and 32 Minn. 425 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.
Morse v. Zeize 24 N.W. 287 Minn. 1885
Morse v. Zeize 24 N.W. 287 Minn. 1885
Co., 29 Minn. 41 ; Washburn on Easements, *139.
Brakken v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. 21 N.W. 414 Minn. 1884
Brakken v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. 21 N.W. 414 Minn. 1884
Berry, J. 1 This is an action for damages accruing to plaintiff from the wrongful continuance after August 24, 1880, of the excavation *426 described and complained of in a case between the same parties which came to this court upon appeal and is reported in 29 Minn. 41 ; 31 Minn. 45 .
Carli v. Union Depot, Street Railway & Transfer Co. 20 N.W. 89 Minn. 1884
Carli v. Union Depot, Street Railway & Transfer Co. 20 N.W. 89 Minn. 1884
Co., 29 Minn. 41 , S. C. 31 Minn. 45 , viz., the difference between the fair rental value of the plaintiff’s property with the railway track constructed and maintained and used upon it, and its rental value without such track.
Brakken v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. 16 N.W. 459 Minn. 1883
Brakken v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. 16 N.W. 459 Minn. 1883
In reference to the matter of damages on account of the defendant’s obstruction of plaintiff’s way, this court, when this case was here before, ( 29 Minn. 41, 45 ,) defined the proper measures of damages to be “the difference between the fair rental value of the property with the railroad crossing in its present improper condition, and its rental value with the crossing in a proper condition.” The ap *48 plicability of this rule of damages is in nowise affected by the fact

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by