Moquin v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the CourtWilson, C. J.
Defendant appealed from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment non obstante or a new trial.
Plaintiff, 46 years old, has worked for defendant 18 years. He was working as a brakeman at the time of his injury, February 27, 1928. The conductor was Mr. Rennie, and Mr. Dan G. Carr was the other brakeman. Plaintiff was injured at Cloverton, Minne sota, because of the derailment of a box-car upon which he was riding while engaged in his work. The main line runs north and south. The depot is to the east. To the west is a passing track. Farther to the west is a house track. A street…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Gila Valley, Globe & Northern Railway Co. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. De AtleySupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Suess v. Arrowhead Steel Products Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
- Broderick v. St. Paul City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- State v. PetersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Ry. Co. v. MoquinSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Kugling v. WilliamsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
- Eichten Ex Rel. Eichten v. Central Minnesota Cooperative Power Ass'nSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
- Olson v. Purity Baking Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
- Ross v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1940
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.