Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Minnesota Supreme Court, 1915

Street v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.

Street v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 2, 1915 · Dibell
130 Minn. 246; 153 N.W. 518; 1915 Minn. LEXIS 555 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

F. M. Wilson, F. W. Root and Nelson J. Wilcox, for appellant., C. P. Carpenter and A. J. Rockne, for respondent.

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 1925, 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

Street v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

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

Dibell, C.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries; verdict for the plaintiff; defendant appeals from the order denying its alternative motion for judgment or for a new trial.

1. This case was here before and is reported, in 124 Minn. 517, 145 N. W. 746. The general facts explanatory of the case may be found there. A decision made upon a former appeal is the law of the case. Orr v. Sutton, 127 Minn. 37, 148 N. W. 1066, and cases cited; and evidence held sufficient to sustain a verdict on a first appeal is sufficient on a second appeal. Webber v. Axtell, 110 Minn. 52, 124 N. W. 453, 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 398.

2. On the former appeal it was held that whether the defendant violated the duty fixed by G. S. 1913, § 4399 (R. L. 1905, § 2031), and whether the plaintiff was guilty of negligence in attempting to alight from the train while it was in motion, were under the evidence questions for the jury. There is additional evidence in this case, but it goes no further than to accentuate the dispute between the parties. Applying the law of.the former case the verdict-should stand.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.