Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Ober v. Golden Rule, 178 N.W. 586.

41 citing documents.

Gilmore v. Walgreen Co. 759 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Gilmore v. Walgreen Co. 759 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See, e.g., Lincoln v. Cambridge-Radisson Co., 235 Minn. 20, 23 , (holding that it would not be unreasonable to find condition in hotel lunchroom unsafe because invitee would be distracted); Ober v. The Golden Rule, 146 Minn. 347, 348 , 178 N.W.
Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc. 203 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 1973
Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc. 203 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 1973
5 See, Ober v. The Golden Rule, 146 Minn. 347
White v. Northwestern Bank Building Company 160 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 1968
White v. Northwestern Bank Building Company 160 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 1968
Ober v. The Golden Rule, 146 Minn. 347 , ; Schrader v. *37 Kriesel, 232 Minn. 238 , 45 N. W. (2d) 395 ; Behrendt v. Ahlstrand, 264 Minn. 10 , 118 N. W. (2d) 27 ; Wolvert v. Gustafson, 275 Minn. 239 , 146 N. W. (2d) 172 .
Wolvert v. Gustafson 146 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1966
Wolvert v. Gustafson 146 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1966
Ober v. The Golden Rule, 146 Minn. 347 , .
Tonne v. Becker Grain & Lumber Company 139 N.W.2d 797 Minn. 1966
Tonne v. Becker Grain & Lumber Company 139 N.W.2d 797 Minn. 1966
Ober v. The Golden Rule, 146 Minn. 347 , ; Theisen v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 200 Minn. 515 , ; Dunham v. Hubert W. White, Inc. 203 Minn. 82 , ; Yeager v. Chapman, 233 Minn. 1 , 45 N. W. (2d) 776 , 22 A. L. R. (2d) 1260; Lincoln v. Cambridge-Radisson Co. 235 Minn. 20 , 49 N. W. (2d) 1 ; Johnson v. Brand Sto
Johnson v. R. E. Tapley, Inc. 136 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1965
Johnson v. R. E. Tapley, Inc. 136 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1965
1 Ober v. The Golden Rule, 146 Minn. 347, 349 , ; Johnson v. Brand Stores, Inc. 241 Minn. 388, 393 , 63 N. W. (2d) 370, 373 ; Dukek v. Farwell, Ozmun, Kirk & Co. 248 Minn. 374, 379 , 80 N. W. (2d) 53, 56 .
Norman v. Tradehome Shoe Stores, Inc. 132 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1965
Norman v. Tradehome Shoe Stores, Inc. 132 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1965
In Ober v. The Golden Rule, 146 Minn. 347 , , the rule is stated by Commissioner Lees as follows: “A shopkeeper is under legal obligation to keep and maintain his premises in a reasonably safe condition for use as to all whom he expressly or impliedly invites to enter the premises.” However, this does not mean that the merchant is an insurer of
Saari v. S. S. Kresge Co. 101 N.W.2d 427 Minn. 1960
Saari v. S. S. Kresge Co. 101 N.W.2d 427 Minn. 1960
1 Albachten v. The Golden Rule, 135 Minn. 381 , ; Ober v. The Golden Rule, 146 Minn. 347 , ; Schrader v. Kriesel, 232 Minn. 238 , 45 N. W. (2d) 395 ; Lincoln v. Cambridge-Radisson Co. 235 Minn. 20 , 49 N. W. (2d) 1 ; Messner v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. 238 Minn. 411 , 57 N. W. (2d) 659 .
McDonough v. Newmans Cloak & Suit Co. 77 N.W.2d 59 Minn. 1956
Harris v. Campbell Cereal Co. 67 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1954
Harris v. Campbell Cereal Co. 67 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1954
See, Johnson v. Brand Stores, Inc. 241 Minn. 388 , 63 N. W. (2d) 370 ; Schrader v. Kriesel, 232 Minn. 238 , 45 N. W. (2d) 395 ; Theisen v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 200 Minn. 515 , ; Duffy v. Stratton, 169 Minn. 136 , ; Ober v. The Golden Rule, 146 Minn. 347 , .
Johnson v. Brand Stores, Inc. 63 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1954
Johnson v. Brand Stores, Inc. 63 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1954
Ober v. The Golden Rule, 146 Minn. 347 , , is an illustration of this rule.
Messner v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. 57 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 1953
Messner v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. 57 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 1953
Lincoln v. Cambridge-Radisson Co. 235 Minn. 20 , 49 N. W. (2d) 1 ; Schrader v. Kriesel, 232 Minn. 238 , 45 N. W. (2d) 395 ; Ober v. The Golden Rule, 146 Minn. 347 , ; Albachten v. The Golden Rule, 135 Minn. 381 , .
Lincoln v. Cambridge-Radisson Co. 49 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1951
Lincoln v. Cambridge-Radisson Co. 49 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1951
2 E. g., Ober v. The Golden Rule, 146 Minn. 347 , ; Albachten v. The Golden Rule, 135 Minn. 381 , ; Schrader v. Kriesel, 232 Minn. 238 , 45 N. W. (2d) 395 .
Schrader v. Kriesel 45 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1950
Schrader v. Kriesel 45 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1950
This court held in Ober v. The Golden Rule, 146 Minn. 347 , , that because a merchant invites customers to look at his merchandise instead of at their footing he is under a legal obligation to maintain a reasonably safe walking surface for customers.
Folsom v. Hojny 26 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1947
Folsom v. Hojny 26 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1947
897 ; Ober v. The Golden Rule, 146 Minn. 347 , 178 N.W.
Smith v. Emporium Mercantile Co. Inc. 251 N.W. 265 Minn. 1933
Smith v. Emporium Mercantile Co. Inc. 251 N.W. 265 Minn. 1933
Johnson v. Ramberg, 49 Minn. 341 , ; Byard v. Palace Clothing House Co. 85 Minn. 363 , ; Albachten v. The Golden Rule, 135 Minn. 381 , ; Ober v. The Golden Rule, 146 Minn. 347 , ; Dore v. Swift & Co. 175 Minn. 545 , ; Mullen v. Sensenbrenner Merc.
Hastings v. F. W. Woolworth Co. Inc. 250 N.W. 362 Minn. 1933
Hastings v. F. W. Woolworth Co. Inc. 250 N.W. 362 Minn. 1933
In Ober v. The Golden Rule, 146 Minn. 347 , , the rule is stated by Judge Lees in this way: “A shopkeeper is under legal obligation to keep and maintain his premises in reasonably safe condition for use as to all whom he expressly or impliedly invites to enter the premises.” The merchant is not an insurer of the safety of his premises.
Tierney v. Graves Motor Co. 239 N.W. 905 Minn. 1931
Tierney v. Graves Motor Co. 239 N.W. 905 Minn. 1931
H. Wood & Co. 113 Minn. 476 , ; Falk v. C. & N. W. R. Co. 133 Minn. 41 , ; Ober v. Golden Rule, 146 Minn. 347 , ; Hommel v. Badger State Inv.
Dore v. Swift & Co. 221 N.W. 904 Minn. 1928
Dore v. Swift & Co. 221 N.W. 904 Minn. 1928
Albachten v. The Golden Rule, 135 Minn. 381 , ; Ober v. The Golden Rule, 146 Minn. 347 , ; Poppleston v. Pantages M. Theatre Co. 175 Minn. 153 , ; 4 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
Landy v. Olson & Serley Sash & Door Co. 214 N.W. 659 Minn. 1927
Landy v. Olson & Serley Sash & Door Co. 214 N.W. 659 Minn. 1927
Id.; Dahl v. Valley Dredging Co. 125 Minn. 90 , , 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1173; Duffy v. Stratton, 169 Minn. 136 , ; Ober v. The Golden Rule, 146 Minn. 347 , ; Mazey v. Loveland, 133 Minn. 210 , , L. R. A. 1916F, 279; Schmidt v. George H. Hurd Realty Co. 170 Minn. 322 , .
Duffy v. Stratton 210 N.W. 866 Minn. 1926
Duffy v. Stratton 210 N.W. 866 Minn. 1926
Ober v. The Golden Rule, 146 Minn. 347 , .