DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Strong v. Shefveland, 81 N.W.2d 247.

28 citing documents.

  • Hiedeman v. Hiedeman 187 N.W.2d 119 Minn. 1971
  • Hiedeman v. Hiedeman 187 N.W.2d 119 Minn. 1971
    See, Restatement, Torts, § 343, comment a; Strong v. Shefveland [ 249 Minn. 59 , 81 N. W. (2d) 247 ]; Thayer v. Silker, 267 Minn. 268 , 126 N. W. (2d) 263 .” According to Restatement, Torts, § 332: “A business visitor is a person who is invited or permitted to enter or remain on land in the possession of another for a purpose directly or indirectly connected with business dealings between them.”
  • Lyman v. Recreational Activities, Inc. 175 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1970
  • Lyman v. Recreational Activities, Inc. 175 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1970
    See, Restatement, Torts, § 343, comment a.; Strong v. Shefveland, 249 Minn. 59 , 81 N. W. (2d) 247 ; Thayer v. Silker, 267 Minn. 268 , 126 N. W. (2d) 263 .
  • Berry v. Haertel 170 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 1969
  • Berry v. Haertel 170 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 1969
    Paul Union Stockyards Co. 271 Minn. 233 , 135 N. W. (2d) 499 ; Strong v. Shefveland, 249 Minn. 59 , 81 N. W. (2d) 247 ; Anderson v. Winkle, 213 Minn. 77 , 5 N. W. (2d) 355 .
  • Cormican v. Parsons 163 N.W.2d 41 Minn. 1968
  • Cormican v. Parsons 163 N.W.2d 41 Minn. 1968
    Strong v. Shefveland, 249 Minn. 59 , 81 N. W. (2d) 247 .
  • Corcoran v. Perry 162 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 1968
  • Corcoran v. Perry 162 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 1968
    See, Strong v. Shefveland, 249 Minn. 59 , 81 N. W. (2d) 247 ; Annotation, 18 A. L. R. (3d) 428.
  • Hedglin v. Church of St. Paul of Sauk Centre 158 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1968
  • Hedglin v. Church of St. Paul of Sauk Centre 158 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1968
    As recently as Kiaka v. S. S. Kresge Co. 273 Minn. 278, 280 , 141 N. W. (2d) 129, 130 , our court reiterated the general principle of the Mattson case, stating: “* * * [T]he exercise of reasonable care for the safety of invitees requires neither the impossible nor the impractical.” Plaintiffs cite Strong v. Shefveland, 249 Minn. 59 , 81 N. W. (2d) 247 , *125 in support of the claim that defendant should have maintained its premises in a reasonably safe condition for use by plaintiff.
  • Mourning v. Interlachen Country Club 158 N.W.2d 244 Minn. 1968
  • Mourning v. Interlachen Country Club 158 N.W.2d 244 Minn. 1968
    They also contend she was a business visitor, citing Strong v. Shefveland, 249 Minn. 59 , 81 N. W. (2d) 247 ; Meyer v. Mitchell, 248 Minn. 397 , 80 N. W. (2d) 450 ; and Eklund v. Kapetas, 216 Minn. 79 , 11 N. W. (2d) 805 .
  • Coenen v. Buckman Building Corporation 153 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1967
  • Coenen v. Buckman Building Corporation 153 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1967
    See, Reardon v. Shimelman, 102 Conn. 383 , 128 A. 705 , 39 A. L. R. 287; Strong v. Shefveland, 249 Minn. 59 , 81 N. W. (2d) 247 .
  • Muckler v. Buchl 150 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1967
  • Muckler v. Buchl 150 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1967
    Paul, 219 Minn. 428 , 18 N. W. (2d) 128 ; Strong v. Shefveland, 249 Minn. 59 , 81 N. W. (2d) 247 ; Cogswell v. U. S. S. Yorktown Post 178, 274 Minn. 154 , 143 N. W. (2d) 45 .
  • Peterson v. WT Rawleigh Company 144 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1966
  • Peterson v. WT Rawleigh Company 144 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1966
    8 Strong v. Shefveland, 249 Minn. 59 , 81 N. W. (2d) 247 ; Slindee v. City of St.
  • Bonniwell v. SAINT PAUL UNION STOCKYARDS COMPANY 135 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 1965
  • Bonniwell v. SAINT PAUL UNION STOCKYARDS COMPANY 135 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 1965
    Co. 241 Minn. 468 , 63 N. W. (2d) 380 ; Strong v. Shefveland, 249 Minn. 59 , 81 N. W. (2d) 247 ; *239 Mattson v. St.
  • Behrendt v. Ahlstrand 118 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1962
  • Behrendt v. Ahlstrand 118 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1962
    In Strong v. Shefveland, 249 Minn. 59 , 81 N. W. (2d) 247 , we held that the plaintiff, who had been injured in a fall on ice on defendant’s premises, was not charged with the burden of establishing the impracticability or impossibility of using other streets or sidewalks; the burden of proving the favorability of a safer route of travel was on the challe
  • Donald v. Moses 94 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1959
  • Donald v. Moses 94 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1959
    Strong v. Shefveland, 249 Minn. 59 , 81 N. W. (2d) 247 ; Slindee v. City of St.
  • Mattson v. St. Luke's Hospital 89 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 1958
  • Mattson v. St. Luke's Hospital 89 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 1958
    Similarly, the Minnesota cases cited by plaintiff; namely, Dore v. Swift & Co. 175 Minn. 545 , ; Yeager v. Chapman, 233 Minn. 1 , 45 N. W. (2d) 776 , 22 A. L. R. (2d) 1260; and Strong v. Shefveland, 249 Minn. 59 , 81 N. W. (2d) 247 , do not support her contention.