DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Ames v. Brandvold, 138 N.W. 786.

30 citing documents.

  • Canada by and Through Landy v. McCarthy 567 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1997
  • Canada by and Through Landy v. McCarthy 567 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1997
    See Johnson v. OBrien, 258 Minn. 502 , 505 n. 1, , 246 n. 1 (1960); Ames v. Brandvold, 119 Minn. 521, 524-25 , 138 N.W.
  • Meyer v. Parkin 350 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Meyer v. Parkin 350 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    14, 15 (1930); Ames v. Brandvold, 119 Minn. 521, 523 , 138 N.W.
  • Johnson v. O'BRIEN 105 N.W.2d 244 Minn. 1960
  • Johnson v. O'BRIEN 105 N.W.2d 244 Minn. 1960
    der 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.
  • State ex rel. City of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 56 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1952
  • State ex rel. City of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 56 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1952
    The reason for a more liberal construction of the pleading on such a motion is stated in Ames v. Brandvold, 119 Minn. 521 , .
  • Breimhorst v. Beckman 35 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1949
  • Breimhorst v. Beckman 35 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1949
    Ames v. Brandvold, 119 Minn. 521 , ; Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520, 523-524 , .
  • Murphy v. Barlow Realty Co. 7 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 1943
  • Murphy v. Barlow Realty Co. 7 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 1943
    Co. 129 Minn. 496 , , L. R. A. 1916F, 1149; Ames v. Brandvold, 119 Minn. 521 , ; Honan v. Kinney, 205 Minn. 485 , .” Guided, no doubt, by these statements, the trial court instructed the jury thus: “Now, then, there are virtually four propositions involved here that plaintiffs must establish before they can recover.
  • Murphy v. Barlow Realty Co. 289 N.W. 567 Minn. 1939
  • Murphy v. Barlow Realty Co. 289 N.W. 567 Minn. 1939
    Co. 129 Minn. 496 , , L. R. A. 1916F, 1149; Ames v. Brandvold, 119 Minn. 521 , ; Honan v. Kinney, 205 Minn. 485 , .
  • Honan v. Kinney 286 N.W. 404 Minn. 1939
  • Honan v. Kinney 286 N.W. 404 Minn. 1939
    This is the established law in this state by Ames v. Brandvold, 119 Minn. 521 , ; Keegan v. G. Heileman Brg.
  • Normandin v. Freidson 233 N.W. 14 Minn. 1930
  • Normandin v. Freidson 233 N.W. 14 Minn. 1930
    Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520 , ; Daley v. Towne, 127 Minn. 231 , ; Ames v. Brandvold, 119 Minn. 521 , ; Barron v. Leidloff, 95 Minn. 474 , .
  • 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
    613 ; Ames v. Brandvold, 119 Minn. 521 , 138 N.W.
  • 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.
  • Rose v. Mooers Brothers Incorporated 201 N.W. 303 Minn. 1924
  • Rose v. Mooers Brothers Incorporated 201 N.W. 303 Minn. 1924
    613; Ames v. Brandvold, 119 Minn. 521 , .
  • Keegan v. G. Heileman Brewing Co. 152 N.W. 877 Minn. 1915
  • Keegan v. G. Heileman Brewing Co. 152 N.W. 877 Minn. 1915
    Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520 , ; Ames v. Brandvold, 119 Minn. 521 , ; Daley v. Towne, 127 Minn. 231 , ; Moore v. Parker, 63 Kan.
  • Daley v. Towne 149 N.W. 368 Minn. 1914
  • Daley v. Towne 149 N.W. 368 Minn. 1914
    the defects in the premises are not secret, but obvious, the tenant takes the risk of their safe occupancy; and the landlord is not liable to him or to any person entering under his title, or who is upon the premises by his invitation, for injuries sustained by reason of the' unsafe condition of the premises.” This and later cases are reviewed and the same doctrine announced in Ames v. Brandvold, 119 Minn. 521 , .
  • Robertson v. Corcoran 145 N.W. 812 Minn. 1914
  • Robertson v. Corcoran 145 N.W. 812 Minn. 1914
    Ames v. Brandvold, 119 Minn. 521 , .