Legal Opinion
St. John v. City of St. Paul
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided December 13, 1929No. 27,564PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.
Plaintiff appeals from the order denying a new trial, a verdict for defendant having been directed.
The evidence shows this in substance: The city of St. Paul maintains a public park in which is Lake Phalen. A part of the lake and beach is set apart for bathing and provided with diving scaffolds and boards. Anyone may make use of these facilities free of charge. Adjacent to the beach is a bathhouse where bathing suits, towels and lockers may be rented and soap purchased from the city. In the afternoon of an early September day, 1927, plaintiff went to this bathing beach, rented a bathing suit,…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Bolster v. City of LawrenceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
- Augustine v. Town of BrantNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Hannon v. City of WaterburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
- Kellar v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Emmons v. City of VirginiaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Nelson v. DelongSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1942
- Dehn v. S. Brand Coal & Oil Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
- Barmel v. Minneapolis-Saint Paul Sanitary DistrictSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1938
- Cunningham v. City of Niagara FallsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934
- Nissen v. RedelackSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.