DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Johnson v. O'BRIEN, 105 N.W.2d 244.

46 citing documents.

  • Wise v. Stonebridge Cmtys., LLC 927 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
  • Wise v. Stonebridge Cmtys., LLC 927 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    There are several exceptions to the general rule for landlords, depending on whether the landlord (1) knows of or should have known of a hidden dangerous condition on the premises, and the tenant, in exercising due care, would not have discovered it for himself, Johnson v. O'Brien , 258 Minn. 502 , , 245 (1960) ; (2) retains possession and control over an area intended for the common use of the tenants (the "common-area" exception), Gradjelick , d at 231 ; (3) has leased the premises for purpose
  • W. J. A., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    Furthermore, the district court instructed the jurors that “[n] othing the attorneys say during the trial, including opening statement and closing argument, is evidence,” and any error “may be rendered harmless where the court instructs the jury to disregard remarks of counsel.” Johnson v. O’Brien
  • White v. Many Rivers West Ltd. Partnership 797 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • White v. Many Rivers West Ltd. Partnership 797 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    See Johnson v. O’Brien, 258 Minn. 502, 506 , (emphasizing that “of course” no duty arises in these scenarios) (quotation omitted).
  • Gradjelick v. Hance 646 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2002
  • Gradjelick v. Hance 646 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2002
    See, e.g., Johnson v. O’Brien, 258 Minn. 502, 504-06 , -47 (1960); Breimhorst v. Beckman, 227 Minn. 409, 417
  • Gradjelick v. Hance 627 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • Gradjelick v. Hance 627 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    The supreme court established landlord liability for a hidden dangerous condition in Johnson v. O’Brien, 258 Minn. 502
  • 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.
  • Bills v. Willow Run I Apartments 547 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1996
  • Bills v. Willow Run I Apartments 547 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1996
    In Johnson v. O’Brien, 258 Minn. 502 , we held that the liability of a landlord extends to those dangerous conditions of which he had knowledge and those dangerous conditions “of which he had reasonable grounds to suspect.” Id., d at 246 .
  • Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc. 544 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc. 544 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    Johnson v. O’Brien, 258 Minn. 502, 508-09
  • Bills v. Willow Run I Apartments 534 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • Bills v. Willow Run I Apartments 534 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    See Johnson v. O’Brien, 258 Minn. 502, 506 , pet.
  • Oakland v. Stenlund 420 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Oakland v. Stenlund 420 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    Johnson v. O’Brien, 258 Minn. 502 , 505 n. 1, , 246 n. 1 (1960).
  • Anderson v. Rumsey 398 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Anderson v. Rumsey 398 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    See Johnson v. O’Brien, 258 Minn. 502, 508-09 , (attorney’s improper comments about what he thought were appropriate answers to special verdict questions did not constitute grounds for a new trial “unless it was prejudicial”).
  • Broughton v. Maes 378 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Broughton v. Maes 378 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    1 Johnson v. O’Brien, 258 Minn. 502, 506
  • Meyer v. Parkin 350 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Meyer v. Parkin 350 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    An exception to this rule was established in Johnson v. O’Brien, 258 Minn. 502 , which held: [Wjhere a landlord has information which would lead a reasonably prudent owner exercising due care to suspect that danger exists on the leased premises at the time the tenant takes possession, and that the tenant exercising due care would not discover it for himself, then he must a
  • Lillemoen v. Gregorich 256 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 1977
  • Lillemoen v. Gregorich 256 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 1977
    Accordingly, the duty of disclosure established in cases such as Johnson v. O’Brien, 258 Minn. 502 , is not applicable.
  • Gleeman v. Oren Triplett 222 N.W.2d 787 Minn. 1974
  • Gleeman v. Oren Triplett 222 N.W.2d 787 Minn. 1974
    The complementary rule of Johnson v. O’Brien, 258 Minn. 502 , similarly precluded counsel from doing the same, and plaintiff’s counsel in the instant case was so precluded.
  • Patterson v. Donahue 190 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1971
  • Patterson v. Donahue 190 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1971
    1 See, Johnson v. O’Brien, 258 Minn. 502
  • Smith Ex Rel. Smith v. Lafortune 179 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1970
  • Smith Ex Rel. Smith v. Lafortune 179 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1970
    In order to rectify these disclosures, plaintiff suggested a corree *143 tive charge, such as that which we held rendered harmless similar error in Johnson v. O’Brien, 258 Minn. 502 , 105 N. W. (2d) 244 .
  • Cashman v. Matson 174 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 1970
  • Cashman v. Matson 174 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 1970
    The court gave a cautionary instruction which plaintiff contends was sufficient to correct any irregularity, citing Johnson v. O’Brien, 258 Minn. 502 , 105 N. W. (2d) 244 , 88 A. L. R. (2d) 577.
  • Cox v. WRIGHT-HENNEPIN CO-OPERATIVE ELEC. ASS'N 161 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 1968
  • Cox v. Wright-Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 161 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 1968
  • Cox v. WRIGHT-HENNEPIN CO-OPERATIVE ELEC. ASS'N 161 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 1968
    Johnson v. O'Brien, 258 Minn. 502 , , 88 A.L.R.2d 577 .
  • Cox v. Wright-Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 161 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 1968
    Johnson v. O’Brien, 258 Minn. 502 , 105 N. W. (2d) 244 , 88 A. L. R. (2d) 577.
  • O'BRIEN v. Johnson 148 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1967
  • O'BRIEN v. Johnson 148 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1967
    The orders were affirmed by a divided court in Johnson v. O’Brien, 258 Minn. 502 , 105 N. W. (2d) 244 .
  • Geislinger v. Village of Watkins 130 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1964
  • Geislinger v. Village of Watkins 130 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1964
    Johnson v. O’Brien, 258 Minn. 502 , 105 N. W. (2d) 244 , 88 A. L. R. (2d) 577; Namchek v. Tulley, 259 Minn. 469 , 107 N. W. (2d) 856 ; 52 C. J. S., Landlord and Tenant, §418.
  • Sandstrom v. AAD Temple Building Assn. Inc. 127 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 1964
  • Sandstrom v. AAD Temple Building Assn. Inc. 127 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 1964
    4 It is not within the scope of this opinion to consider th'e many facets of the liability of the owner or possessor of land, including that of the landlord to the tenant or his invitee, Johnson v. O’Brien, 258 Minn. 502 , 105 N. W. (2d) 244 , 88 A. L. R. (2d) 577; Breimhorst v. Beckman, 227 Minn. 409 , 35 N. W. (2d) 719 , or the liability of the shopkeeper to the business invitee, Flynn v. Arcade Investment Co. 253 Minn. 107 , 91 N. W. (2d) 113 ; Anderson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 223 Minn. 1
  • Cummings v. Prater 386 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1963