Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Russell v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co., 20 N.W. 147.

27 citing documents.

Moteberg v. Johnson 210 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1973
Moteberg v. Johnson 210 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1973
Co. 32 Minn. 230 , stated that an employee has the right to assume, in the absence of notice to the contrary, or something to put him on inquiry, that his master has exercised ordinary *36 care to supply him with a safe instrument.
Falkenberg v. Partridge 144 N.W. 431 Minn. 1913
Falkenberg v. Partridge 144 N.W. 431 Minn. 1913
Co. 32 Minn. 230, 234 , .
Hendrickson v. Ash 109 N.W. 830 Minn. 1906
Krumdick v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. 95 N.W. 1122 Minn. 1903
Krumdick v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. 95 N.W. 1122 Minn. 1903
Co., 32 Minn. 230 , ; McDonald v. Chicago, St.
Gray v. Commutator Co. 89 N.W. 322 Minn. 1902
Gray v. Commutator Co. 89 N.W. 322 Minn. 1902
Co., 32 Minn. 230 , ; Hungerford v. Chicago, M. & St.
Quick v. Minnesota Iron Co. 50 N.W. 244 Minn. 1891
Quick v. Minnesota Iron Co. 50 N.W. 244 Minn. 1891
Co., 32 Minn. 230 , ( 20 N. W. Rep.
McDonald v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 43 N.W. 380 Minn. 1889
Hungerford v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 43 N.W. 324 Minn. 1889
Hungerford v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 43 N.W. 324 Minn. 1889
Co., 32 Minn. 230 , ( 20 N. W. Rep.
McDonald v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 43 N.W. 380 Minn. 1889
Co., 32 Minn. 230 , ( 20 N. W. Rep.
Rolseth v. Smith 35 N.W. 565 Minn. 1887
Rolseth v. Smith 35 N.W. 565 Minn. 1887
Co., 32 Minn. 230 , ( 20 N. W. Rep.
Steen v. St. Paul & Duluth Railroad 34 N.W. 113 Minn. 1887
Steen v. St. Paul & Duluth Railroad 34 N.W. 113 Minn. 1887
Co., 32 Minn. 230 , ( 20 N. W. Rep.
Wuotilla v. Duluth Lumber Co. 33 N.W. 551 Minn. 1887
Wuotilla v. Duluth Lumber Co. 33 N.W. 551 Minn. 1887
Co., 32 Minn. 230 , ( 20 N. W. Rep.
Craver v. Christian 31 N.W. 457 Minn. 1887
Craver v. Christian 31 N.W. 457 Minn. 1887
Co., 32 Minn. 230 , ( 20 N. W. Rep.
Robel v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 27 N.W. 305 Minn. 1886
Robel v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 27 N.W. 305 Minn. 1886
Co., 32 Minn. 230 , ( 20 N. W. Rep.
Cook v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. 24 N.W. 311 Minn. 1885
Cook v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. 24 N.W. 311 Minn. 1885
Co., 32 Minn. 230 ; Hutchinson v. Railway Co., and Gibson v. Pacific R. Co., supra.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by