Legal Opinion

Strong v. Richfield State Agency, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided September 18, 1990No. C3-90-494PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HUSPENI, Judge.

Appellants seek review of a directed verdict granted after receipt of their evidence. The trial court ruled appellants failed to show that respondent property owner either caused the hazard on or made extraordinary use of the municipal property upon which appellant Carolyn Strong was injured and therefore had a duty to maintain it. We affirm.

FACTS

Respondent Richfield State Agency owned a commercial building and rented space to various businesses. Construction necessitated having patrons park across the street and approach the building either by walking along the public…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Midland National Bank of Minneapolis v. PerranoskiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  2. Kolatz v. KellySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
  3. Bentson v. Berde's Food Center, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
  4. Graalum v. Radisson Ramp, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
  5. Kantorowicz v. VFW Post, No. 230Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. DriemanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  2. May v. CrounseDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992

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

Powered by the Exa API