Legal Opinion · Dissent

Keep v. Otter Tail Power Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 31, 1937No. 31,294PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Dissent

There is no serious dispute concerning the facts, about the only controversy being as to whether they show the place in question to be a "playground." If treated in the light of a modern city "playground," the territory immediately adjacent to the place of the accident would not bear the dignity of that title. If considered as a place where farm boys assembled and carried on their youthful activities, the term "playground" would not be a misnomer. Whatever it is called, boys, including plaintiff, frequently gathered there, and defendant's line patrolmen had ample opportunity to discover this…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Humphrey v. Twin State Gas & Electric Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1927
  2. Musolf v. Duluth Edison Electric Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
  3. Gimmestad v. Rose Brothers Co. Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1935
  4. Znidersich v. Minnesota Utilities Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
  5. Hoppe v. City of WinonaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Keep v. Otter Tail Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API