DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite King v. Nichols & Shepard Co., 55 N.W. 604.

32 citing documents.

  • La Mourea v. Rhude 295 N.W. 304 Minn. 1940
    Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , 25 L. R. A. 257, 39 A. S. R. 618.
  • Mowry v. Thompson 250 N.W. 52 Minn. 1933
    Clark v. Clark, 164 Minn. 201 , , and cases cited; Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , 25 L. R. A. 257, 39 A. S. R. 618; Peterson v. Parviainen, 174 Minn. 297 , ; Kuske v. Jevne, 174 Minn. 484 , .
  • Marshall State Bank v. Buesing 228 N.W. 348 Minn. 1929
    On behalf of defendant Evarts there is an attempt to invoke the doctrine of Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , 25 L. R. A. 257, 39 A. S. R. 618, and Kramer v. Gardner, 104 Minn. 370 , , 22 L.R.A.
  • Cruickshank v. Ellis 226 N.W. 192 Minn. 1929
    Certainly Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , 25 L. R. A. 257, 39 A. S. R. 618, cited by plaintiff, does not warrant the claim that she can recover here upon the stipulation.
  • Rand Kardex Service Corp. v. Forrestal 219 N.W. 943 Minn. 1928
    Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , 25 L. R. A. 257, 39 A. S. R. 618, is not a barrier to this suit under St.
  • Heins v. Byers 219 N.W. 287 Minn. 1928
    The facts bring the case within Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , no matter how technical an application be given it, and other cases of similar import.
  • Peterson v. Parviainen 219 N.W. 180 Minn. 1928
    Whatever may be the future attitude of this court as to the main holding in Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , *302 25 L. R. A. 257, 39 A. S. R. 618, the facts in the present case clearly bring it within the exception referred to in that case.
  • Bringgold v. Bringgold 217 N.W. 362 Minn. 1928
    Decision went against plaintiffs below on the authority of Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , 25 L.R.A.
  • St. Paul Foundry Co. v. Evenson 211 N.W. 834 Minn. 1927
    The surety company relies upon Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , 25 L.R.A.
  • Clearwater Creamery Assn. v. Hovland 205 N.W. 895 Minn. 1925
    Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , 25 L. R. A. 257, 39 Am.
  • Witzman v. Sjoberg 205 N.W. 257 Minn. 1925
    The facts do not bring it within the doctrine of Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , 25 L. R. A. 257, 39 Am.
  • Becker v. Nelson 205 N.W. 262 Minn. 1925
    In the case last cited, the following language is quoted from Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , 25 L. R. A. 257, 39 Am.
  • Harriet State Bank v. Samels 204 N.W. 938 Minn. 1925
    In Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , 25 L. R. A. 257, 39 Am.
  • Clark v. Clark 204 N.W. 936 Minn. 1925
    Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , 25 L. R. A. 257, 39 Am.
  • Satterlee v. Lawler 193 N.W. 118 Minn. 1923
  • Satterlee v. Lawler 193 N.W. 118 Minn. 1923
    Wheaton v. Lund, 61 Minn. 94 , ; King v. Nichols & Shepard Co. 53 Minn. 453 , , is not out of accord.
  • General Electric Co. v. Jordan 162 N.W. 1061 Minn. 1917
    The facts come directly within the principle of Kramer v. Gardner, 104 Minn. 370 , , 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 492; Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , 25 L. R. A. 257, 39 Am.
  • Moore v. Mann 153 N.W. 609 Minn. 1915
    The following cases, cited by one or both parties, have been given the consideration due them in reaching a conclusion: Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , 25 L.R.A.
  • Clark v. P. M. Hennessey Construction Co. 142 N.W. 873 Minn. 1913
    Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , 25 L.R.A.
  • Wood v. Johnson 135 N.W. 746 Minn. 1912
    Or, as stated in Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , 25 L.R.A.
  • Gaffney v. Sederberg 131 N.W. 333 Minn. 1911
    Sanders v. Classon, 13 Minn. 352 , (379) ; Jordan v. White, 20 Minn. 77 (91) ; Follansbee v. Johnson, 28 Minn. 311 , ; Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , 25 L.R.A.
  • Scott-Graff Lumber Co. v. Independent School District No. 1 128 N.W. 672 Minn. 1910
    In Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , 25 L.R.A.
  • Waterous Engine Works Co. v. Village of Clinton 125 N.W. 269 Minn. 1910
    Paul v. Butler, 30 Minn. 459 , *275 ; Morton v. Power, 33 Minn. 521 , ; State Bank of Duluth v. Heney, 40 Minn. 145 , ; Tompkins v. Forrestal, 54 Minn. 119 , ; Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45 , ; Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , 25 L.R.A.
  • Michaud v. Erickson 122 N.W. 324 Minn. 1909
    The contract is with Bead; but these third parties were to receive a benefit therefrom, and under the rule in Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , 25 L. R. A. 257, 39 Am.
  • Vukelis v. Virginia Lumber Co. 119 N.W. 509 Minn. 1909
  • Vukelis v. Virginia Lumber Co. 119 N.W. 509 Minn. 1909
    of Ramsey Co. v. Brisbin, 17 Minn. 429 (451); King v. *71 Nichols & Shepard Co., 53 Minn. 453 , .
  • Kramer v. Gardner 116 N.W. 925 Minn. 1908
    It was held in Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , 25 L. R. A. 257, 39 Am.
  • Klotz v. Winona & St. Peter Railroad 71 N.W. 257 Minn. 1897
  • Klotz v. Winona & St. Peter Railroad 71 N.W. 257 Minn. 1897
    King v. Nichols, 53 Minn. 453 , ; Union v. John, 49 Minn. 481 , .
  • Anderson v. Nordstrom 61 N.W. 1132 Minn. 1895
  • Anderson v. Nordstrom 61 N.W. 1132 Minn. 1895
    See, also, King v. Nichols & Shepard Co., 53 Minn. 153 , The finding was supported by the evidence.
  • Jefferson v. Asch 55 N.W. 604 Minn. 1893