Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Williams v. John A. Stees Co. Inc., 214 N.W. 671.

26 citing documents.

Loewe v. City of Le Sueur 151 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1967
Loewe v. City of Le Sueur 151 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1967
It is also well established that the abutting owner “who for his convenience or otherwise changes conditions in the street or sidewalk may make himself liable to persons injured if his negligence caused such changes to become dangerous.” Williams v. John A. Stees Co. Inc. 172 Minn. 35, 39 , .
Brown v. Gustafson 117 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 1962
Brown v. Gustafson 117 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 1962
Paul, 128 Minn. 95 , ; Williams v. John A. Stees Co. Inc. 172 Minn. 35 , .
Brittain v. City of Minneapolis 84 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1957
Brittain v. City of Minneapolis 84 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1957
McGandy v. City of Marshall, 178 Minn. 326 , ; Williams v. John A. Stees Co. Inc. 172 Minn. 35 , .
Sternitzke v. Donahue's Jewelers 83 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 1957
Distinguished Sternitzke v. Donahue's Jewelers 83 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 1957
1 Plaintiffs cite the following cases as controlling: Shepstedt v. Hayes, supra; Williams v. John A. Stees Co. Inc. 172 Minn. 35 , ; Leystrom v. City of Ada, 110 Minn. 340 , .
Sand v. City of Little Falls 55 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 1952
Sand v. City of Little Falls 55 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 1952
In Williams v. John A. Stees Co. Inc. 172 Minn. 35 , , the abutting landowner was held liable on the showing that he had needlessly disturbed the surface of the brick sidewalk by removing the support for the sidewalk and allowing it to sag unevenly, so that some of the brick projected above the rest of the surface.
Lamb v. South Unit Jehovah's Witnesses 45 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 1950
Lamb v. South Unit Jehovah's Witnesses 45 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 1950
Molis v. City of Duluth, 226 Minn. 79 , 32 N. W. (2d) 147 ; Williams v. John A. Stees Co. Inc. 172 Minn. 35 , ; Johnson v. Elmborg, 165 Minn. 67 , ; Moore v. Townsend, 76 Minn. 64 , , supra; McCarrier v. Hollister, 15 S. D. 366, ; Gainfort v. 229 Raritan Avenue Corp. 127 N. J. L. 409, 22 A. (2d) 893; cf. Shepstedt v. Hayes, 221 Minn. 74 , 21 N. W. (2d) 199 ; Kooreny v. D
Callahan v. City of Virginia 40 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 1950
Callahan v. City of Virginia 40 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 1950
She cites in support of her theory Landru v. Lund, 38 Minn. 538 , ; City of Wabasha v. Southworth, 54 Minn. 79 , ; Ray v. Jones & Adams Co. 92 Minn. 101 , ; Latell v. Cunningham, 122 Minn. 144 , ; Palm v. City of Minneapolis, 143 Minn. 477 , ; Williams v. John A. Stees Co. Inc: 172 Minn. 35 , ; Shepstedt v. Hayes, 221 Minn. 74 , 21 N. W. (2d) 199 .
Shepstedt v. Hayes 21 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1945
Shepstedt v. Hayes 21 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1945
Williams v. John A. Stees Co. Inc. 172 Minn. 35 , .
Abar v. Ramsey Motor Service, Inc. 263 N.W. 917 Minn. 1935
Abar v. Ramsey Motor Service, Inc. 263 N.W. 917 Minn. 1935
However, this is not a case where defendant maintains a structure in the street for his own benefit which he then must maintain in proper condition, like Ray v. Jones & Adams Co. 92 Minn. 101 , , and cases therein cited; Williams v. John A. Stees Co. Inc. 172 Minn. 35 , .
Burke v. O'Neil 257 N.W. 81 Minn. 1934
Burke v. O'Neil 257 N.W. 81 Minn. 1934
Nor is this a case where the defendants had created an obstruction in the street or the walks or boulevard thereof, as in Landru v. Lund, 38 Minn. 538 , ; Palm v. City of Minneapolis, 143 Minn. 477 , ; and Williams v. John A. Stees Co. Inc. 172 Minn. 35 , .
McGandy v. City of Marshall 227 N.W. 177 Minn. 1929
McGandy v. City of Marshall 227 N.W. 177 Minn. 1929
Paul, 152 Minn. 123 , ; Williams v. John A. Stees Co. Inc. 172 Minn. 35 , .
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
Williams v. John A. Stees Co. Inc. 172 Minn. 35 , .
Mix v. Downing 222 N.W. 913 Minn. 1929
Williams v. John A. Stees Co. Inc. 172 Minn. 35 , 214 N.W.