Legal Opinion

Antonnelly v. Adam

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 2, 1928No. Nos. 26,879, 26,880PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Taylor, C.

The Martin Auto Livery made a contract by which it agreed to and did furnish 20 cars with drivers for a funeral. To make up the required number the Martin company (so designated for convenience) hired three cars with drivers from defendant Adam, who was also in the business of furnishing cars for funerals. On the return from the cemetery, plaintiff Mary Antonelly was a passenger in one of the cars hired from Adam and was injured in a collision with a truck caused by the negligence of the driver of the car. She brought suit for the personal injuries sustained; and her husband,…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Shepard v. JacobsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
  2. Waters v. Pioneer Fuel Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
  3. Billing v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Densby v. BartlettIllinois Supreme Court · 1925
  5. McNamara v. . LeipzigNew York Court of Appeals · 1919

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Nepstad v. LambertSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
  2. Ahlstrom v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
  3. Lee Moor Contracting Co. v. BlantonArizona Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Turner v. Schumacher Motor Express, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
  5. Albert v. HudsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1934

13 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