Legal Opinion

Rue v. Wendland

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 25, 1948No. Nos. 34,659, 34,660PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Peterson, Justice.

In two separate actions, one by plaintiff William Rue to recover for personal injuries and property damage sustained as a result of a collision between Ms automobile and defendant’s, and another by plaintiff Esther Rue to recover for personal injuries sustained by her as a guest passenger in William’s car as a result of the collision, the verdicts were for defendant, and in the action in which William Rue was plaintiff, defendant recovered on Ms counterclaim against William. Plaintiffs appeal.

The questions for decision are:(1) Whether a motorist was negligent was a question…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Parrot v. Wells, Fargo & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1873
  2. Geisen v. LuceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
  3. Hatch v. DanielsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1922
  4. Aubin v. Duluth Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
  5. Village of Wonewoc v. TaubertWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
  2. Despatch Oven Co. v. RauenhorstSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
  3. Barrett v. Nash Finch Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
  4. Milbank Insurance Co. v. B.L.G.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
  5. M.M.D. v. B.L.G.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API