Legal Opinion · Dissent

Honer v. Nicholson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided September 4, 1936No. 30,795Published

1DissentDevaney, Chief Justice

I cannot concur in the majority opinion.

The facts which necessarily must be stated in greater detail for purposes of dissent are as follows: On January 13, 1934, plaintiff’s intestate, who was a young man of 32 years, was riding as a passenger in the left rear seat of an automobile owned and operated by one M. A. Scales. The car was traveling in an easterly direction along state trunk highway No. 23 in Stearns county, Minnesota. This highway is paved with concrete, 18 feet wide, and has dirt shoulders two or three feet wide. A black line marks the center of the pavement.

On the same date, on…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Anderson v. AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1933
  2. Turner v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
  3. Petterson v. Butler Bros.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1913

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API