Legal Opinion
Gile v. Yellow Cab Corp.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided June 14, 1929No. 27,289PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHilton, J.
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court sustaining a demurrer to paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the amended answer.
Plaintiff was a taxicab driver in the employ of one Eaton, who under the name of “Yellow Cab'Company” owned and operated a number of taxicabs in the city of Rochester. Defendant was likewise carrying on a taxicab business in that city. On December 7, 1927, plaintiff sustained serious injuries as the result of a collision in Rochester between one of Eaton’s taxicabs, operated by him, and one of the defendant’s taxicabs, operated by its employe Coles.. Plaintiff and…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Rasmussen v. George Benz & SonsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
- Behr v. SothSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- McGuigan v. AllenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- Uotila v. Oliver Iron Mining Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
- Lovell v. MarshallSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Harding v. Ohio Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
- Boek v. Wong HingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
- State v. MeanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
- Coleman v. Hamilton Storage Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1938
- Robinson v. ButlerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.