Legal Opinion

Wimperis v. Saltzinger

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided January 28, 1966No. 39672PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Rogosheske, Justice.

After verdict in defendant’s favor, the trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial. They appeal from that order and from the judgment.

On December 10, 1961, at about 7 p. m., a rear-end collision occurred between a Ford vanette truck operated by plaintiff Harold Wimperis and a Dodge automobile operated by defendant, Siegfried Satzinger. The collision occurred near the intersection of Highways No. 100 and No. 169. Plaintiff Hazel Wimperis was a passenger in the truck driven by her husband. At the time of the accident it was dark, the temperature was about 10…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Nees v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
  2. Ryan v. GriffinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
  3. Pluwak v. LindbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
  4. Hardy v. AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
  5. Teas v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1955

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Connaker v. HartSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
  2. Rehnke v. JammesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
  3. Gave v. PYROFAX GAS CORPORATIONSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
  4. Tomforde v. NewmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
  5. Brager v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of FargoCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985

3 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