TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Citing references

Opinions citing Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 20 N.W. 87 (Minn. 1884)

23 citing cases

Negative treatment
Depth Newest Oldest Most cited
Majority opinions only
1 2–3 4–9 10+ times cited
  1. Ott v. Tri-State Telephone & Telegraph Co.
    149 N.W. 544 Supreme Court of MinnesotaNovember 20, 1914

    Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co. 32 Minn. 217 , 18 N. W. 836 , 20 N. W. 87 ; Nelson v. Village of West Duluth, 55 Minn. 497 , 57 N. W. 149 ; Halness v. Anderson, 110 Minn. 204 , 124 N. W. 830 .

  2. High v. Supreme Lodge of the World
    7 N.W.2d 675 Supreme Court of MinnesotaJanuary 2, 1943

    In Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co. 30 Minn. 41 , 14 N. W. 62 ; Id. 32 Minn. 217 , 18 N. W. 836 , 20 N. W. 87 ; Id. 35 Minn. 251 , 28 N. W. 708 , a defamatory charge was made against a physician relating to his professional conduct in a particular case.

  3. Dennis v. Johnson
    44 N.W. 68 Supreme Court of MinnesotaJanuary 8, 1890

    The principles by which trial courts should be controlled in considering whether a verdict in such a case should be set aside upon the ground that it is excessive have been set forth in Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , ( 18 N. W.

  4. Mohr v. Williams
    104 N.W. 12 Supreme Court of MinnesotaJune 23, 1905

    W. 712 ; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , 18 N. W. 836 , 20 N. W. 87 ), in reviewing which this court will be guided by the general rule applicable to other discretionary orders. We applied this rule at the present term in Epstein v.

  5. Maas v. Midway Chevrolet Co.
    18 N.W.2d 233 Supreme Court of MinnesotaApril 6, 1945

    W. 712 ; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , 18 N. W. 836 , 20 N. W. 87 ), in reviewing which' this court will be guided by the general rule applicable to other ■ discretionary orders.” See, Minn.

  6. Pratt v. Pioneer-Press Co.
    28 N.W. 708 Supreme Court of MinnesotaMay 28, 1886

    When this case was here on a former appeal, ( 32 Minn. 217 ; 18 N. W. Rep. 836 , and 20 N. W.

  7. McCue v. Equity Co-Operative Publishing Co.
    167 N.W. 225 North Dakota Supreme CourtFebruary 23, 1918

    L. pp. 301, 307; Newell, Slander & Libel, pp. 184, 185; Odgers, Libel & Slander, 26; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co. 32 Minn. 217 , 18 N. W. 831 , 20 N. W. 87 . See also Estelle v. Daily *205 News Pub. Co. 99 Neb. 397 , 156 N. W. 645 , 101 Neb. 610 , 164 N.

  8. State v. Barnes
    81 N.W.2d 864 Supreme Court of MinnesotaMarch 22, 1957

    Maxwell, supra. 8 Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co. 32 Minn. 217, 220 , 18 N. W. 836 , 20 N. W. 87 . 9 Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co. supra; Loveland v. Cooley, 59 Minn. 259 , 61 N. W. 138 ; State v. Baker, 234 Minn. 528 , 49 N. W. (2d) 107 ; see, Bock v.

  9. Sharpe v. Larson
    70 N.W. 1 Supreme Court of MinnesotaFebruary 9, 1897

    . & L. 26; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , 18 N. W. 836 , and 20 N. W. 87 .

  10. Litman v. Walso
    1 N.W.2d 391 Supreme Court of MinnesotaDecember 19, 1941

    W. 712 ; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , 18 N. W. 836 , 20 N. W. 87 ), in reviewing which this court will be guided by the general rule applicable to other discretionary orders.”

  11. Bock v. Sauk Center Grocery Co.
    110 N.W. 257 Supreme Court of MinnesotaJanuary 18, 1907

    Reynolds, 12 Minn. 135 (213); Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , 18 N. W. 836 , 20 N. W. 87 ; Briggs v. Shea, 48 Minn. 218 , 50 N. W. 1037 .

  12. Ross v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co.
    290 N.W. 566 Supreme Court of MinnesotaFebruary 16, 1940 Dissent

    W. 712 ; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co. 32 Minn. 217 , 18 N. W. 836 , 20 N. W. 87 ), in reviewing Avhich this court will be guided by the *171 general rule applicable to other discretionary orders.” (Italics supplied.) This court in Nelson v.

  13. State v. Shippman
    86 N.W. 431 Supreme Court of MinnesotaJune 7, 1901

    W. 98 ; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , 18 N. W. 836 , 20 N. W. 87 ; Nord v. Gray, 80 Minn. 143 , 82 N. W. 1082 .

  14. State Sash & Door Manufacturing Co. v. Adams
    50 N.W. 360 Supreme Court of MinnesotaNovember 25, 1891

    Rep. 455 ;) Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , ( 18 N. W. Rep. 836 , and 20 N. W. Rep. 87 .) The last case cited fully covers the present, case.

  15. Beek v. Nelson
    147 N.W. 668 Supreme Court of MinnesotaJune 5, 1914

    Rep. 380 ; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co. 32 Minn. 217, 223 , 18 N. W. 836 , 20 N. W. 87 . The rule is applicable to a person engaged in any lawful occupation or employment by which he gains his livelihood. Johnson v. Shields, 25 N. J. L. 116.

  16. United States Investment Corp. v. Ulrickson
    86 N.W. 613 Supreme Court of MinnesotaJune 21, 1901

    W. 1037 , and Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , 18 N. W. 836 , 20 N. W. 87 .

  17. English v. Minneapolis & St. Paul Suburban Railway Co.
    104 N.W. 886 Supreme Court of MinnesotaNovember 17, 1905

    Williams, supra; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , 20 N. W. 87 .

  18. Loveland v. Cooley
    61 N.W. 138 Supreme Court of MinnesotaDecember 6, 1894

    See Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , ( 18 N. W. 836 , and 20 N. W. 87 .) 2. This is an action, of replevin, between the holders of different chattel mortgages on the same property.

  19. McKnight v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.
    105 N.W. 673 Supreme Court of MinnesotaDecember 22, 1905

    W. 712 ; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , 18 N. W. 836 , 20 N. W. 87 ; Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , 104 N. W. 12 .

  20. Blume v. Scheer
    86 N.W. 446 Supreme Court of MinnesotaJune 7, 1901

    This distinction was not overlooked in one of our leading cases on this matter (Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , 18 N. W. 836 , 20 N.

  21. Reid v. Ehr
    162 N.W. 903 North Dakota Supreme CourtApril 28, 1917

    “It is to be remembered,” said the Minnesota supreme court in Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co. 32 Minn. 218 , 223, 20 N.

  22. Shattuc v. McArthur
    25 F. 133 U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern MissouriOctober 1, 1885

    Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 20 N. W. Rep. 87 . (а) Regarding Lawyers. Charging an attorney with “betraying and selling innocence in a court of justice,” is. Ludwig v. Cramer, 10 N. W. Rep. 81 . (б) Regarding Physicians.

  23. Woodward v. Glidden
    22 N.W. 127 Supreme Court of MinnesotaJanuary 17, 1885

    Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , we have recently had occasion to consider the principles by which the district courts should be governed in passing upon applications for new trials upon the ground of excessive damages, and also the' principles by which this court

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list