Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Farley v. Byers, 118 N.W. 1023.

28 citing documents.

Johnson v. O'BRIEN 105 N.W.2d 244 Minn. 1960
Johnson v. O'BRIEN 105 N.W.2d 244 Minn. 1960
which an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under the same *507 or similar circumstances can hardly be onerous, unreasonable or oppressive.” The following Minnesota authorities may be referred to in support of defendants’ position: Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520 , ; Tvedt v. Wheeler, 70 Minn. 161 , ; Kayser v. Lindell, 73 Minn. 123 , ; Farley v. Byers, 106 Minn. 260 , ; Ames v. Brandvold, 119 Minn. 521 , ; Daley v. Towne, 127 Minn. 231 , ; Keegan v. G. Heileman Brg.
Swenson v. Slawik 53 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1952
Swenson v. Slawik 53 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1952
Iverson v. Quam, 226 Minn. 290 , 32 N. W. (2d) 596 ; Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons, 168 Minn. 819 , , ; Rose v. Mooers Brothers Inc. 161 Minn. 149 , ; Barrett v. Lumber Exchange Co. 159 Minn. 326 , ; Williams v. Dickson, 122 Minn. 49 , ; Farley v. Byers, 106 Minn. 260 , .
Iverson v. Quam 32 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 1948
Iverson v. Quam 32 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 1948
Farley v. Byers, 106 Minn. 260 , ; Williams v. Dickson, 122 Minn. 49 , ; Rose v. Mooers Brothers Inc. 161 Minn. 149 , ; 32 Am.
Anderson v. Winkle 5 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1942
Anderson v. Winkle 5 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1942
: Klugman v. Schwartz, 186 Minn. 139 , ; Normandin v. Freidson, 181 Minn. 471 , ; Mix v. Downing, 176 Minn. 156 , ; Soper v. Erickson, 172 Minn. 377 , ; Rose v. Mooers Bros. Inc. 161 Minn. 149 , ; McNab v. Wallin, 133 Minn. 370 , ; La Pray v. *81 Lavoris Chemical Co. 117 Minn. 152 , ; Farley v. Byers, 106 Minn. 260 , , 130 A. S. R. 613; Widing v. Penn Mut.
Heinman v. United Properties, Inc. 298 N.W. 247 Minn. 1941
Heinman v. United Properties, Inc. 298 N.W. 247 Minn. 1941
Farley v. Byers, 106 Minn. 260 , , 130 A. S. R. 613.
Green v. Elgin Hotel Co. 295 N.W. 905 Minn. 1941
Green v. Elgin Hotel Co. 295 N.W. 905 Minn. 1941
So, under the rule of Farley v. Byers, 106 Minn. 260 , , 130 A. S. R. 613, the Rimnik Corporation, as matter of law, is not liable.
Mix v. Downing 222 N.W. 913 Minn. 1929
Mix v. Downing 222 N.W. 913 Minn. 1929
Mix v. Downing 222 N.W. 913 Minn. 1929
Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520 , ; Tvedt v. Wheeler, 70 Minn. 161 , ; Kayser v. Lindell, 73 Minn. 123 , ; Barron v. Liedloff, 95 Minn. 474 , ; Farley v. Byers, 106 Minn. 260 , , 130 A. S. R. 613; Ames v. Brandvold, 119 Minn. 521 , ; Daley v. Towne, 127 Minn. 231 , ; Keegan vG.
Mix v. Downing 222 N.W. 913 Minn. 1929
289 ; Farley v. Byers, 106 Minn. 260 , 118 N.W.
Nickelsen v. Minneapolis, Northfield & Southern Railway 209 N.W. 646 Minn. 1926
Nickelsen v. Minneapolis, Northfield & Southern Railway 209 N.W. 646 Minn. 1926
Barron v. Liedloff, 95 Minn. 474 , ); nor a case where the premises are let with a nuisance upon them (Isham v. Broderick, 89 Minn. 397 , ); nor a case where *121 the landlord retains general control over passageways, halls and the like, and there is thus imposed upon him the duty of keeping in repair (Williams v. Dickson, 122 Minn. 49 , ; Farley v. Byers, 106 Minn. 260 , , 130 Am.
Rose v. Mooers Brothers Incorporated 201 N.W. 303 Minn. 1924
Rose v. Mooers Brothers Incorporated 201 N.W. 303 Minn. 1924
Farley v. Byers, 106 Minn. 260 , , 130 Am.
Central State Bank v. Hanson 197 N.W. 283 Minn. 1924
Central State Bank v. Hanson 197 N.W. 283 Minn. 1924
Hungerford v. O’Brien, 37 Minn. 306 , ; D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Gullik-son, 64 Minn. 218 , ; Merritt v. Haas, 106 Minn. 275 , , , 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 153; First Nat.
First National Bank v. Schirmer 159 N.W. 800 Minn. 1916
First National Bank v. Schirmer 159 N.W. 800 Minn. 1916
Merritt v. Haas, 106 Minn. 275 , , *391 , 21 L.R.A.
Daley v. Towne 149 N.W. 368 Minn. 1914
Daley v. Towne 149 N.W. 368 Minn. 1914
and the like, and there is thus imposed upon him the duty of keeping in repair (Williams v. Dickson, 122 Minn. 49 , ; Farley v. Byers, 106 Minn. 260 , , 130 Am.
Williams v. Dickson 141 N.W. 849 Minn. 1913
Williams v. Dickson 141 N.W. 849 Minn. 1913
Farley v. Byers, 106 Minn. 260 , , 130 Am.