DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hamlin v. Wistar, 18 N.W. 145.

22 citing documents.

  • Simon v. Carroll 62 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1954
    State v. Kahner, 217 Minn. 574 , 15 N. W. (2d) 105 ; Warner v. Lockerby, 31 Minn. 421 , ; See, Rudsdill v. Slingerland, 18 Minn. 342 (380); 36 Minn. L. Rev. 730 to 733.
  • Brearley v. Schoening 210 N.W. 588 Minn. 1926
  • Brearley v. Schoening 210 N.W. 588 Minn. 1926
    Lanz v. McLaughlin, 14 Minn. 55 (72); Hamlin v. Wistar, 31 Minn. 418 , ; Langellier v. Schaefer, 36 Minn. 361 , ; Ames & Frost Co. v. Smith, 65 Minn. 304 , ; Kileen v. Kennedy, 90 Minn. 414 , ; Lewis v. Johnson, 123 Minn. 409 , , L. R. A. 1915D, 150; Rahm v. Cummings, 131 Minn. 141 , ; Kull v. Wilson
  • Bergh v. Stanek 184 N.W. 371 Minn. 1921
  • Bergh v. Stanek 184 N.W. 371 Minn. 1921
    Hamlin v. Wistar, 31 Minn. 418 , 18 N. W. *78 145 ; Langellier v. Schaefer, 36 Minn. 361 , ; Baker v. Brundage, 131 Minn. 299 , .
  • Baker v. Polydisky 174 N.W. 526 Minn. 1919
  • Baker v. Polydisky 174 N.W. 526 Minn. 1919
    Lanz v. McLaughlin, 14 Minn. 55 (72); Hamlin v. Wistar, 31 Minn. 418 , ; Langellier v. Schaefer, 36 Minn. 361 , ; St.
  • Krohn v. Dustin 172 N.W. 213 Minn. 1919
  • Krohn v. Dustin 172 N.W. 213 Minn. 1919
    Kileen v. Kennedy, 90 Minn. 414 , , and cases cited; Langellier v. Schaefer, 36 Minn. 361 , ; Hamlin v. Wistar, 31 Minn. 418 , ; Lanz v. McLaughlin, 14 Minn. 55 (72).
  • Kull v. Wilson 162 N.W. 1072 Minn. 1917
  • Kull v. Wilson 162 N.W. 1072 Minn. 1917
    Ct. 168, 30 L. ed. 376; Hamlin v. Wistar, 31 Minn. 418 , ; Lanz v. McLaughlin, 14 Minn. 55 (72).
  • McAlpine v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. 158 N.W. 967 Minn. 1916
    Warner v. Lockerby, 31 Minn. 421 , .
  • Erickson v. Minnesota & Ontario Power Co. 158 N.W. 979 Minn. 1916
    In Warner v. Lockerby, 31 Minn. 421 , , it was held that the rule that a new trial should not be granted because a verdict should have been given for plaintiff for nominal damages, should not be extended to eases “where some rule of law has been violated in the admission or rejection of evidence, or in expounding the law to the jury.” We think there
  • Kilburn v. National Surety Co. 157 N.W. 498 Minn. 1916
    Rudsdill v. Slingerland, 18 Minn. 342 (380); State v. Barrett, 40 Minn. 65 , ; State v. King, 88 Minn. 175 ; ; Matthews v. Hershey Lumber Co. 65 Minn. 372 , Moreland v. Lawrence, 23 Minn. 84 ; Warner v. Lockerby, 31 Minn. 421 , ; Swanson v. Andrus, 84 Minn. 186 , , ; also cases cited in note in 14 L.R.A.
  • Kileen v. Kennedy 97 N.W. 126 Minn. 1903
  • Kileen v. Kennedy 97 N.W. 126 Minn. 1903
    Such acceptance must be unqualified, so that there is a 'clear accession on both sides to one and the same set of terms.’ ” Lanz v. Mc *415 Laughlin, 14 Minn. 55 (72); Hamlin v. Wistar, 31 Minn. 418, 18 .
  • Ames & Frost Co. v. Smith 67 N.W. 999 Minn. 1896
  • Ames & Frost Co. v. Smith 67 N.W. 999 Minn. 1896
    Lanz v. McLaughlin, 14 Minn. 55 , (72); Hamlin v. Wistar, 31 Minn. 418 , ; Langellier v. Schaefer, 36 Minn. 361 , .
  • Langellier v. Schaefer 31 N.W. 690 Minn. 1887
  • Langellier v. Schaefer 31 N.W. 690 Minn. 1887
    Lanz v. McLaughlin, 14 Minn. 55 , (72;) Hamlin v. Wistar, 31 Minn. 418 , ( 18 N. W. Rep.
  • Jackson v. Badger 26 N.W. 908 Minn. 1886
  • Jackson v. Badger 26 N.W. 908 Minn. 1886
    671 ;) Hamlin v. Wistar, 31 Minn. 418 , ( 18 N. W. Rep.