Legal Opinion
Panzram v. O'Donnell
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided December 23, 1942No. Civ. Nos. 149, 150PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NORDBYE, District Judge.
Defendant’s motions are based principally on these grounds: That Sections 170.05 and 542.09 of the Laws of Minnesota for 1941 violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution of the United States, Amend. 14, and impose an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.
Defendant is a resident of the State of Wisconsin. On June 7, 1942, an automobile driven by him collided with a car driven by Herman Panzram on a highway in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Panzram resides in Waseca County, Minnesota. These actions were commenced by the plaintiffs in Blue Earth County,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hess v. PawloskiSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Power Manufacturing Co. v. SaundersSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- State Ex Rel. St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railway Co. v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Schilling v. OdlebakSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
- Henry Fisher Packing Co. v. MattoxCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1936
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Knoop v. AndersonDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1947
- Pasternack v. DaloDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1955
- Devescovi v. VenturaDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2002
- Matter of BurnsCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
- Janasko v. FisherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1967