Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Fitzgerald v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co., 13 N.W. 168.

28 citing documents.

O'Neal v. Burlington Northern, Inc. 413 N.W.2d 631 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
O'Neal v. Burlington Northern, Inc. 413 N.W.2d 631 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Co., 29 Minn. 336 , 13 N.W.
Pierson v. Edstrom 174 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1970
Pierson v. Edstrom 174 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1970
Peterson Ex Rel. Peterson v. Richfield Plaza, Inc. 89 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1958
Overruled Peterson Ex Rel. Peterson v. Richfield Plaza, Inc. 89 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1958
Co. 29 Minn. 336 , , which had held to the contrary.
Pattridge v. Palmer 277 N.W. 18 Minn. 1937
Pattridge v. Palmer 277 N.W. 18 Minn. 1937
Co. 29 Minn. 336 , 13 N.W.
Arnao v. Minneapolis & St. Paul Suburban Railroad 259 N.W. 12 Minn. 1935
Arnao v. Minneapolis & St. Paul Suburban Railroad 259 N.W. 12 Minn. 1935
Co. 29 Minn. 336 , , 43 *502 Am.
O'Connell v. Holler 182 N.W. 617 Minn. 1921
O'Connell v. Holler 182 N.W. 617 Minn. 1921
Co. 29 Minn. 336 , , 43 Am.
Bailey v. Grand Forks Lumber Co. 119 N.W. 787 Minn. 1909
Bailey v. Grand Forks Lumber Co. 119 N.W. 787 Minn. 1909
Co., 29 Minn. 336 , , 43 Am.
Mattson v. Minnesota & North Wisconsin Railroad 104 N.W. 443 Minn. 1905
Mattson v. Minnesota & North Wisconsin Railroad 104 N.W. 443 Minn. 1905
Co., 29 Minn. 336 , , we take this occasion, the question being squarely presented by the facts, to reconsider the rule announced in that case.
Frisch v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 104 N.W. 228 Minn. 1905
Frisch v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 104 N.W. 228 Minn. 1905
Mattes v. Great Northern Railway Co. 104 N.W. 234 Minn. 1905
Mattes v. Great Northern Railway Co. 104 N.W. 234 Minn. 1905
Neither the Eitzgerald case, 29 Minn. 336 , , nor the Eezler case, 85 Minn. 252 , , is in point to the contrary.
Nickolson v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 83 N.W. 454 Minn. 1900
Nickolson v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 83 N.W. 454 Minn. 1900
Co., 29 Minn. 336 , ) that the statute imposed no liability in case children were injured because of failure or neglect to fence.
Rosse v. St. Paul & Duluth Railway Co. 71 N.W. 20 Minn. 1897
Rosse v. St. Paul & Duluth Railway Co. 71 N.W. 20 Minn. 1897
Paul, 29 Minn. 336 , , in which it was held that the statute requiring railroad companies to fence their roads *218 was inapplicable to the case of infants, although non sui juris; that it was only designed to prevent animals from coming upon the track, with the consequent danger to the animals themselves and the passengers
O'Malley v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. 45 N.W. 440 Minn. 1890
O'Malley v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. 45 N.W. 440 Minn. 1890
Co., 29 Minn. 336 , ( 13 N. W. Rep.
Halverson v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. 19 N.W. 392 Minn. 1884
Halverson v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. 19 N.W. 392 Minn. 1884

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by