Legal Opinion

Murray v. Albert Lea Home Investment Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided January 28, 1938No. 31,483PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Gallagi-ier, Chiee Justice.

Action for damages caused by defendant’s negligent maintenance of an elevator shaft. After a verdict for plaintiff, defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante was granted, and this appeal is taken from the judgment thereafter entered.

Since the question of plaintiff’s contributory negligence is determinative of the case, a detailed statement of the facts is unnecessary. Defendant owns and operates a six-story office building in Albert Lea. The sixth floor is leased to the local Elks Lodge. On the evening of January 13, 1935, at about 11:30, plaintiff entered the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Rice v. Goodspeed Real Estate Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Blankertz v. MacK & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Central Publishing House of Reformed Church in United States v. FluryOhio Court of Appeals · 1927
  4. Bremer v. PleissWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Minneapolis Sash & Door Co. v. Metropolitan BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Huyink v. Hart Publications, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1942
  2. Eklund v. KapetasSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1943
  3. Iverson v. QuamSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
  4. Bridges v. HillmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
  5. Conroy v. Kleinman Realty Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1970

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API