TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Citing references

Opinions citing Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co., 169 N.W. 541 (Minn. 1918)

22 citing cases

Negative treatment
Depth Newest Oldest Most cited
Majority opinions only
1 2–3 4–9 10+ times cited
  1. Ellis v. Lindmark
    225 N.W. 395 Supreme Court of MinnesotaMay 10, 1929

    Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 141 Minn. 154 , 169 N. W. 541 (negligence in selling impure ether and negligence of physicians in administering it); Farrell v. G. O. Miller Co. 147 Minn. 52 , 179 N.

  2. Briggs v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co.
    57 N.W.2d 572 Supreme Court of MinnesotaMarch 6, 1953

    Cas. 1913D, 244; Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 141 Minn. 154 , 169 N. W. 541 .” (Italics supplied.) Plaintiff contends that Dr.

  3. Ruud v. Hendrickson
    222 N.W. 904 Supreme Court of MinnesotaJanuary 4, 1929

    Cas. 1913D, 244; Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 141 Minn. 154 , 169 N. W. 541 .

  4. Taylor v. Northern States Power Co.
    256 N.W. 674 Supreme Court of MinnesotaOctober 12, 1934

    R. 867 (where prior decisions are cited and the reason for the rule is well stated); Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 141 Minn. 154 , 169 N. W. 541 ; Id. 145 Minn. 100 , 176 N. W. 169 ; Asplind v. Fred W. Pearce Corp. 175 Minn. 445 , 221 N.

  5. State Stove Manufacturing Company v. Hodges
    189 So. 2d 113 Mississippi Supreme CourtJuly 8, 1966

    Co., 126 Iowa 730 , 102 N.W. 793 (1905); Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co., 141 Minn. 154 , 169 N.W. 541 (1918); Farrell v. G.O. Miller Co., 147 Minn. 52 , 179 N.W. 566 (1920).

  6. Klingbeil v. Truesdell
    98 N.W.2d 134 Supreme Court of MinnesotaAugust 7, 1959

    W. (2d) 17, 20 . 2 Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 141 Minn. 154 , 169 N. W. 541 ; Lund v. Olson, 182 Minn. 204 , 234 N. W. 310 , 75 A. L. R. 371.

  7. Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co.
    176 N.W. 169 Supreme Court of MinnesotaFebruary 6, 1920

    A former appeal was. taken by defendant Parke, Davis & Company [ 141 Minn. 154 , 169 N.

  8. Simpson v. Occidental Building & Loan Ass'n
    19 P.2d 958 Wyoming Supreme CourtMarch 13, 1933

    W. 162 ; Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co., 141 Minn. 154 , 169 N. W. 541 ; Stroman v. Atlas Refining Corporation, 112 Neb. 187 , 199 N. W. 26 ; Garver v. Lightner, 275 Pa. 401 , 119 Atl. 482 .

  9. Benes v. Campion
    244 N.W. 72 Supreme Court of MinnesotaJuly 29, 1932

    R. 458; Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 141 Minn. 154 , 169 N. W. 541 ; McCrossin v. Noyes Bros. & Cutler, Inc. 143 Minn. 181 , 173 N. W. 566 ; Ellis v. Lindmark, 177 Minn. 390 , 225 N. W. 395 .

  10. Monson v. Arcand
    58 N.W.2d 753 Supreme Court of MinnesotaMay 22, 1953

    W. 886 ; Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 141 Minn. 154 , 169 N. W. 541 ; 5 Dunnell, Dig. & Supp. § 7137.

  11. Watts v. Billings Bench Water Assn.
    253 P. 260 Montana Supreme CourtJanuary 27, 1927

    Thus in Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co., 141 Minn. 154 , 169 N.

  12. Lemieux v. Bishop
    209 N.W.2d 379 Supreme Court of MinnesotaJune 22, 1973

    See, Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 141 Minn. 154 , 169 N. W. 541 (1918); Briggs v. Chicago G. W. Ry. Co. 238 Minn. 472 , 57 N. W. 2d 572 (1953); Annotation, 60 A. L. R. 2d 77, 81, 94.

  13. Ohio County Drug Co. v. Howard
    256 S.W. 705 Court of Appeals of KentuckyDecember 14, 1923

    In one of those cases, Moehlenbrock v. Parke Davis & Co., 141 Minn. 154 , 169 N. W. 541 , evidence strikingly but not exactly like that rejected here was held competent.

  14. Cascio v. Bishop Sewer & Water Co.
    119 N.E.2d 531 Appellate Court of IllinoisJune 3, 1954

    App. 581, 588 , and authorities there cited; Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co., 141 Minn. 154 , 169 N. W. 541 ; and cf. Gorezki v. Ideal Creamery Co., 180 Minn. 13 , 230 N. W. 128 ; Breuer v. Arenz, 202 Wis. 453 , 233 N. W. 76 .)

  15. Gillespie v. Great Northern Railway Co.
    208 P. 1059 Montana Supreme CourtJune 26, 1922

    Parke Davis & Co., 141 Minn. 154 , 169 N. W. 541 .) The fact, according to the amended complaint, that the defendant, in causing or permitting the collision, did so through its “employees, agents, and servants,” does not change the situation.

  16. Butler v. Northwestern Hospital
    278 N.W. 37 Supreme Court of MinnesotaFebruary 25, 1938

    In Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 141 Minn. 154, 156 , 169 N. W. 541, 542 , defendant drug company had furnished impure ether. In administering it the doctors were negligent. The patient was killed.

  17. Pete v. Lampi
    185 N.W. 653 Supreme Court of MinnesotaDecember 9, 1921

    W. 157 ; Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 141 Minn. 154 , 169 N. W. 541 .

  18. Winans v. Northern States Power Co.
    196 N.W. 811 Supreme Court of MinnesotaJanuary 18, 1924

    Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 141 Minn. 154 , 169 N. W. 541 . The boat was built to be used in connection with the logging and lumbering operations of the boom company. It was equipped with a pile driver.

  19. Peterson v. Langsten
    242 N.W. 549 Supreme Court of MinnesotaMay 6, 1932

    W. 568 ; Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 141 Minn. 154 , 169 N. W. 541 ; Hansman v. Western Union Tel. Co. 144 Minn. 56 , 174 N. W. 434 ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Chamblee, 171 Ala. 188 , 54 So. 681 , Ann. Cas. 1913A, 977; St. L. I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v.

  20. Boyle v. Boileau
    219 N.W. 866 Supreme Court of MinnesotaJune 8, 1928

    Cas. 303; Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 141 Minn. 154 , 169 N. W. 541 .

  21. Beehler v. Fawcett Publications, Inc.
    229 N.W. 87 Supreme Court of MinnesotaJanuary 31, 1930

    W. 886 ; Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 141 Minn. 154 , 169 N. W. 541 . Affirmed.

  22. State v. Eidsvold Creamery Co.
    194 N.W. 17 Supreme Court of MinnesotaJune 1, 1923

    Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 141 Minn. 154 , 169 N. W. 541 . The order is affirmed.

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