Larson v. Northern Pacific Railroad
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1973, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Abex Corporation v. Commissioner of Taxation (Minn. 1973)
- Sage v. Rudnick (Minn. 1897)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Action for damages to plaintiff’s team and wagon at a railroad crossing, through the alleged negligence of defendant. The error assigned is that the verdict is not justified by the evidence, for the reasons — -first, that defendant was not guilty of any negligence; second, that plaintiff’s servant in charge of the team was guilty of contributory negligence. In our opinion, there was sufficient evidence to warrant the jury in finding that defendant was negligent. Our judgment also is that we would not by any means be justified in
There is one fact which of itself would be a sufficient reason why the question of contributory negligence should not be considered. Some material testimony bearing upon that point was given with reference to a map of the locus in quo, which was presented to the witnesses on the trial, but which is not contained in the return, and without which the evidence is unintelligible. We cannot say what weight this evidence might have had; hence the case stands practically as if all the evidence was not here. Where witnesses refer to a map in giving their testimony, whenever necessary to an understanding of the evidence, the map should be returned with the places or objects to which they referred so identified as to make their testimony intelligible.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.