Keep v. Otter Tail Power Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
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
- Humphrey v. Twin State Gas & Electric Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1927
- Musolf v. Duluth Edison Electric Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- Gimmestad v. Rose Brothers Co. Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1935
- Znidersich v. Minnesota Utilities Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
- Hoppe v. City of WinonaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Keep v. Otter Tail Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1937