Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Johnson v. St. Paul & Duluth Railroad, 45 N.W. 156.

52 citing documents.

State Ex Rel. City of New Prague v. County of Scott 261 N.W. 863 Minn. 1935
State Ex Rel. City of New Prague v. County of Scott 261 N.W. 863 Minn. 1935
P. & D. R. Co. 43 Minn. 222, 224 , , 8 L. R. A. 419, opinion by Justice Mitchell: “It has been sometimes loosely stated that special legislation is not class, ‘if all persons brought under its influence are treated alike under the same conditions.’ But this is only half the truth.
In Re Application of Humphrey 227 N.W. 179 Minn. 1929
In Re Application of Humphrey 227 N.W. 179 Minn. 1929
P. & D. R, Co. 43 Minn. 222 , , 8 L. R. A. 419; State ex rel.
Driscoll v. Board of County Commissioners 201 N.W. 945 Minn. 1925
Driscoll v. Board of County Commissioners 201 N.W. 945 Minn. 1925
P. & D. R. Co. 43 Minn. 222 , , 8 L. R. A. 419; State v. Pocock, 161 Minn. 376 , .
State v. Pocock 201 N.W. 610 Minn. 1925
State v. Pocock 201 N.W. 610 Minn. 1925
Paul & Duluth R. Co. 43 Minn. 222 , , 8 L. R. A. 419; State ex rel.
Herr v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 191 N.W. 607 Minn. 1923
Herr v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 191 N.W. 607 Minn. 1923
Paul & D. R. Co. 43 Minn. 222 , , 8 L. R. A. 419.
Seamer v. Great Northern Railway Co. 172 N.W. 765 Minn. 1919
Seamer v. Great Northern Railway Co. 172 N.W. 765 Minn. 1919
Paul & Duluth R. Co. 43 Minn. 222, , 8 L.R.A.
State ex rel. Olson v. Erickson 146 N.W. 364 Minn. 1914
State ex rel. Olson v. Erickson 146 N.W. 364 Minn. 1914
Paul & Duluth R. Co. 43 Minn. 222 , , 8 L.R.A.
Nylund v. Duluth & Northeastern Railway Co. 143 N.W. 739 Minn. 1913
Nylund v. Duluth & Northeastern Railway Co. 143 N.W. 739 Minn. 1913
Paul & D. R. Co. 43 Minn. 222 , , 8 L.R.A.
Jelos v. Oliver Iron Mining Co. 141 N.W. 843 Minn. 1913
Jelos v. Oliver Iron Mining Co. 141 N.W. 843 Minn. 1913
Paul & D. R. Co. 43 Minn. 222 , , 8 L.R.A.
Majavis v. Great Northern Railway Co. 141 N.W. 806 Minn. 1913
Majavis v. Great Northern Railway Co. 141 N.W. 806 Minn. 1913
Paul & D. R. Co. 43 Minn. 222 , , 8 L.R.A.
Hanson v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 121 N.W. 607 Minn. 1909
Hanson v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 121 N.W. 607 Minn. 1909
Paul & D. R. Co., 43 Minn. 222 , , 8 L. R. A. 419; Pearson v. Chicago, M & St.
Johnson v. Great Northern Railway Co. 116 N.W. 936 Minn. 1908
Johnson v. Great Northern Railway Co. 116 N.W. 936 Minn. 1908
Paul & D. R. Co., 43 Minn. 222 , , 8 L. R. A. 419, and Jemming v. Great Northern Ry.
State ex rel. Board of Education v. Brown 106 N.W. 477 Minn. 1906
State ex rel. Board of Education v. Brown 106 N.W. 477 Minn. 1906
Paul & D. R. Co., 43 Minn. 222 , , 8 L. R. A. 419.
Jemming v. Great Northern Railway Co. 104 N.W. 1079 Minn. 1905
Jemming v. Great Northern Railway Co. 104 N.W. 1079 Minn. 1905
Paul & Duluth R. Co., 43 Minn. 222 , , where after full and careful reconsideration the statute v^s held to apply only to the employees of railway corporations exposed to the peculiar hazards connected with the use and operation of railroads.
Swartz v. Great Northern Railway Co. 101 N.W. 504 Minn. 1904
Distinguished Swartz v. Great Northern Railway Co. 101 N.W. 504 Minn. 1904
Paul & D. R. Co., 43 Minn. 222 , 45 N. W156, Lavallee v. St.
Kline v. Minnesota Iron Co. 100 N.W. 681 Minn. 1904
State ex rel. Corriston v. Rogers 100 N.W. 659 Minn. 1904
Kline v. Minnesota Iron Co. 100 N.W. 681 Minn. 1904
Paul & D. R. Co., 43 Minn. 222 , , very clearly states the rule which has since the Ravallee case been followed and applied in this state.
State ex rel. Corriston v. Rogers 100 N.W. 659 Minn. 1904
Paul & D. R. Co., 43 Minn. 222 , , not only must the law treat alike, under same conditions, all who are brought within its influence, but in its classification it must bring within its influence all who are under the same conditions.” In Alexander v. City of Duluth, supra, the following language is used: “Our view is that under this c
Schus v. Powers-Simpson Co. 85 Minn. 447 Minn. 1902
Schus v. Powers-Simpson Co. 85 Minn. 447 Minn. 1902
Paul & D. R. Co., 43 Minn. 222 , , be unconstitutional and void as class legislation, — but as applying to employers whose servants and employees are exposed to the peculiar hazards and dangers incident to the operation of railroads.
O'Niel v. Great Northern Railway Co. 82 N.W. 1086 Minn. 1900
O'Niel v. Great Northern Railway Co. 82 N.W. 1086 Minn. 1900
Paul & D. R. Co., 43 Minn. 222 , ; Pearson v. Chicago, M. & St.
Weisel v. Eastern Railway Co. 82 N.W. 576 Minn. 1900
Weisel v. Eastern Railway Co. 82 N.W. 576 Minn. 1900
Paul & D. R. Co., 43 Minn. 222 , ; Pearson v. Chicago, M. & St.
Flynn v. Little Falls Electric & Water Co. 77 N.W. 38 Minn. 1898
Flynn v. Little Falls Electric & Water Co. 77 N.W. 38 Minn. 1898
Paul & D. R. Co., 43 Minn. 222 ; State v. District Court, 61 Minn. 542 ; State v. Egan, ¡64 Minn. 331; State v. Sullivan, 62 Minn. 283 .
State ex rel. Board of Courthouse & City Hall Com'rs v. Cooley 58 N.W. 150 Minn. 1893
State ex rel. Board of Courthouse & City Hall Com'rs v. Cooley 58 N.W. 150 Minn. 1893
Paul & Duluth R. Co., 43 Minn. 222 , ( ;) and numerous other cases.
State ex rel. McCue v. Sheriff of Ramsey County 51 N.W. 112 Minn. 1892
State ex rel. McCue v. Sheriff of Ramsey County 51 N.W. 112 Minn. 1892
Paul & D. R. Co., 43 Minn. 222 , ( 45 N. W. Rep.
Pearson v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 49 N.W. 302 Minn. 1891
Pearson v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 49 N.W. 302 Minn. 1891
Paul & Duluth R. Co., 43 Minn. 222 , ( 45 N. W. Rep.
Steffenson v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 47 N.W. 1068 Minn. 1891
Steffenson v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 47 N.W. 1068 Minn. 1891
Paul & Duluth R. Co., 43 Minn. 222 , ( 45 N. W. Rep.