Wells-Dickey Trust Co. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
1 Reported in 207 N.W. 186. This case has been here before and is reported in 159 Minn. 417,199 N.W. 101, to which reference is made for an outline of the facts.
It was there held that the plaintiff, after the death of the mother of the deceased employe, might maintain this action for the benefit of the employe's sister.
But two questions were litigated at the second trial: (1) Was the sister dependent on her brother at the time of his death? (2) If she was, what pecuniary loss did she sustain? Defendant rested without introducing any evidence and moved unsuccessfully for a directed verdict.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Michigan Central Railroad v. VreelandSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. McGinnisSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Duval v. HuntSupreme Court of Florida · 1894
- In re CarrollIndiana Court of Appeals · 1917
- Blanton v. Wheeler & Howes Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1916
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Wells-Dickey Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Carianni v. SchwenkerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1955
- Correia v. Van Camp Sea Food Co.California Court of Appeal · 1952
- Notti v. Great Northern Railway Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1940
- Ketchikan Lumber & Shingle Co. v. BishopCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1928
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.