Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Johnson v. Evanski, 22 N.W.2d 213.

82 citing documents.

Sperr Ex Rel. Sperr v. Ramsey County 429 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Sperr Ex Rel. Sperr v. Ramsey County 429 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Property owners have a duty “to guard, not against all possible consequences, but only against those which are reasonably to be anticipated in the normal course of events.” Bisher, d at 733 (quoting Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323, 326 , ).
Bahl v. Country Club Market, Inc. 410 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bahl v. Country Club Market, Inc. 410 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(quoting Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323, 327 , ).
Gum v. Medcalf Orthopaedic Appliance Co. 380 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Gum v. Medcalf Orthopaedic Appliance Co. 380 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323, 327
Bisher v. Homart Development Co. 328 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1983
Bisher v. Homart Development Co. 328 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1983
Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323 at 326 , at 215 (1946).
Flom v. Flom 291 N.W.2d 914 Minn. 1980
Flom v. Flom 291 N.W.2d 914 Minn. 1980
Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323, 328 , Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352, 356
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
In Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323, 326 , we defined the duty that an owner of a building has to one who enters his place of business as an invitee: “* * * [Defendants were under a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep their store in a reasonably safe condition for the ingress, progress, and egress of customers.
Renne v. Gustafson 194 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 1972
Renne v. Gustafson 194 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 1972
See, Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323 , Kilbane v. County of Ramsey, 292 Minn. 86
Kilbane v. County of Ramsey 193 N.W.2d 301 Minn. 1971
Kilbane v. County of Ramsey 193 N.W.2d 301 Minn. 1971
Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323
Sandvik v. Jammes 160 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 1968
Sandvik v. Jammes 160 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 1968
Neither is the law so exacting as to require every fact and circumstance going to make up a case of negligence, or to identify the proximate cause, to be proved by eyewitnesses or positive, direct testimony.” In Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323, 327 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213, 215 , this court declared: “Taking, as we must, the view of the evidence most favorable to the verdict, a motion for a judgment notwithstanding, whether based on negligence or on contributory negligence, should be denied unless
Muckler v. Buchl 150 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1967
Muckler v. Buchl 150 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1967
7 See, Hubenette v. Ostby, 213 Minn. 349 , 6 N. W. (2d) 637 ; Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213 ; Grabow v. Hanson, 226 Minn. 265 , 32 N. W. (2d) 593 ; Schrader v. Kriesel, 232 Minn. 238 , 45 N. W. (2d) 395 ; Standafer v. First Nat.
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 Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213 , plaintiff was injured in attempting to enter defendant’s store.
Jones v. Whitaker Buick Co. 130 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 1964
Jones v. Whitaker Buick Co. 130 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 1964
She cites among her authorities Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323, 327 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213, 215 , in which we said: “Taking, as we must, the view of the evidence most favorable to the verdict, a motion for a judgment notwithstanding, whether based on negligence or on contributory negligence, should be denied unless the evidence in support of the verdict, and all reasonable inference
Sarsfield v. St. Mary's Hospital 129 N.W.2d 306 Minn. 1964
Sarsfield v. St. Mary's Hospital 129 N.W.2d 306 Minn. 1964
2 See, Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213 .
Behrendt v. Ahlstrand 118 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1962
Behrendt v. Ahlstrand 118 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1962
Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213 .
Lindgren v. Voge 109 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1961
Lindgren v. Voge 109 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1961
To support his theory, he cites Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213 , and Hubbard v. Montgomery Ward & Co. Inc. 221 Minn. 133 , 21 N. W. (2d) 229 ; but those cases involve actions by a customer against a storekeeper and not against an operator of a place of amusement.
Ruehling v. American Legion Pavilion, Inc. 96 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1959
Ruehling v. American Legion Pavilion, Inc. 96 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1959
2 Connolly v. The Nicollet Hotel, 254 Minn. 373 , 95 N. W. (2d) 657 ; Sylvester v. Northwestern Hospital, 236 Minn. 384 , 53 N. W. (2d) 17 ; Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213 ; Landru v. Stensrud, 219 Minn. 227 , 17 N. W. (2d) 322 ; Dunham v. Hubert W. White, Inc. 203 Minn. 82 , ; Pfeifer v. Standard Gateway Theater, Inc. 259 Wis.
Floen v. Sund 96 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1959
Floen v. Sund 96 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1959
Co. 252 Minn. 484 , 90 N. W. (2d) 514 ; Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213 .
Flynn v. Arcade Investment Co. 91 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 1958
Flynn v. Arcade Investment Co. 91 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 1958
Co. 212 Minn. 551 , 4 N. W. (2d) 617 ; or without adequate illumination, Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213 ; or in a location where an invitee’s attention is diverted to other things, Lincoln v. Cambridge-Radisson Co. 235 Minn. 20 , 49 N. W. (2d) 1 , established negligence on the part of the building owner.
Swanson v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 90 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1958
Swanson v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 90 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1958
1 Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213 ; Ranwick v. Nunan, 202 Minn. 415 , .
Tollefson v. Ehlers 90 N.W.2d 205 Minn. 1958
Tollefson v. Ehlers 90 N.W.2d 205 Minn. 1958
3 Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323, 327 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213, 215 .
Lyon v. Dr. Scholl's Foot Comfort Shops, Inc. 87 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 1958
Lyon v. Dr. Scholl's Foot Comfort Shops, Inc. 87 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 1958
In this connection, see, also, Anderson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 223 Minn. 1 , 26 N. W. (2d) 355 ; Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213 ; Bragg v. The Dayton Co. 212 Minn. 491 , 4 N. W. (2d) 320 .
Gray v. First National Bank of Crosby 85 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1957
Gray v. First National Bank of Crosby 85 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1957
1 Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213 ; Dukek v. Farwell, Ozmun, Kirk & Co. 248 Minn. 374 , 80 N. W. (2d) 53 ; Johnson v. Brand Stores, Inc. 241 Minn. 388 , 63 N. W. (2d) 370 .
Brittain v. City of Minneapolis 84 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1957
Brittain v. City of Minneapolis 84 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1957
We have said repeatedly that (Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323, 327 , 22 N. W. [2d] 213, 215): “Taking, as we must, the view of the evidence most favorable to the verdict, a motion for a judgment notwithstanding, whether based on negligence or on contributory negligence, should be denied unless the evidence in support of the verdict, and all reasonable inferences to be drawn ther
Dukek v. Farwell, Ozmun, Kirk & Co. 80 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 1956
Dukek v. Farwell, Ozmun, Kirk & Co. 80 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 1956
As good a statement as any is found in our case of Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323, 326 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213, 215 , where we said: “* * * defendants were under a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep their store in a reasonably safe condition for the ingress, progress, and egress of customers.
McCuller v. Workson 78 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 1956
McCuller v. Workson 78 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 1956
Co. 223 Minn. 243 , 26 N. W. (2d) 178 ; Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323 , 22 N. W. (2d) 213 ; 13 Dunnell, Dig.