Legal Opinion
Saunders v. Yellow Cab Corp.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided December 12, 1930No. 28,111PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtOlsen, J.
Defendant appeals from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. While Mr. Buffington as receiver of the Yellow Cab Corporation has, since the trial, been substituted as' defendant, we speak of' the corporation as the defendant.
Plaintiff sued to recover damages for personal injuries claimed to have been caused by the negligence of the driver of one of defendant’s cabs, and recovered a verdict.
The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict is challenged on two points: (1) That it is insufficient to sustain the finding that the…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo BrotherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- Schaar v. ConforthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Primock v. GoldenbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Day v. Duluth Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Heiden v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Mechler v. McMahonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
- Kachman v. BlosbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
- Levasseur v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1946
- Heikkinen v. CashenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
- Peterson v. MillerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.