stated the general rule in Minnesota

1987In a recent case, however, this court stated the general rule that a duty to warn arises only if the state has actual knowledge or constructive notice of alleged roadway defects or dangerous conditions is inapplicable if the “defect * * * is one which [the state] created.” Holmquist v. State, 409 N.W.2d 243 (Minn.Ct.App.1987), (quoting Larson v. Township of New Haven, Olmsted County, 282 Minn. 447, 454 , 165 N.W.2d 543, 547 (1969)).

1984In Lewis v. Remmele Engineering, Inc., 314 N.W.2d 1 (Minn.1981), the court stated the general rule that “to satisfy the standard of a ‘serious threat’ to one’s health or safety, the employer must establish that it relied upon competent medical advice that there exists a reasonably probable risk of serious harm.” Id. at 4 (citing Chicago & North Western Railroad v. Labor & Industry Review Commission, 91 Wis.2d 462 , 283 N.W.2d 603 (Wis.Ct.App.1979)).

1984In Lewis v. Remmele Engineering, Inc., 314 N.W.2d 1 (Minn.1981), the court stated the general rule that “to satisfy the standard of a ‘serious threat’ to one’s health or safety, the employer must establish that it relied upon competent medical advice that there exists a reasonably probable risk of serious harm.” Id. at 4 (citing Chicago & North Western Railroad v. Labor & Industry Review Commission, 91 Wis.2d 462 , 283 N.W.2d 603 (Wis.Ct.App.1979)).

1984In Lewis v. Remmele Engineering, Inc., 314 N.W.2d 1 (Minn.1981), the court stated the general rule that “to satisfy the standard of a ‘serious threat’ to one’s health or safety, the employer must establish that it relied upon competent medical advice that there exists a reasonably probable risk of serious harm.” Id. at 4 (citing Chicago & North Western Railroad v. Labor & Industry Review Commission, 91 Wis.2d 462 , 283 N.W.2d 603 (Wis.Ct.App.1979)).

1984In Lewis v. Remmele Engineering, Inc., 314 N.W.2d 1 (Minn.1981), the court stated the general rule that “to satisfy the standard of a ‘serious threat’ to one’s health or safety, the employer must establish that it relied upon competent medical advice that there exists a reasonably probable risk of serious harm.” Id. at 4 (citing Chicago & North Western Railroad v. Labor & Industry Review Commission, 91 Wis.2d 462 , 283 N.W.2d 603 (Wis.Ct.App.1979)).

1971In Northern Trust Co. v. Markell, 61 Minn. 271, 272 , 63 N. W. 735 , an action for specific performance of the sale of corporate stock, the court stated the general rule as follows: “As a general rule, the specific performance of contracts relating to chattels will be denied, because the law affords adequate and complete redress in an action for damages.

1971In Northern Trust Co. v. Markell, 61 Minn. 271, 272 , 63 N. W. 735 , an action for specific performance of the sale of corporate stock, the court stated the general rule as follows: “As a general rule, the specific performance of contracts relating to chattels will be denied, because the law affords adequate and complete redress in an action for damages.

1945In Bartley v. Fritz, 205 Minn. 192, 197 , 285 N. W. 484, 486 , this court stated the general rule as follows: “A verdict may be directed in those unequivocal cases where it clearly appears to the court on trial that it would be its duty to set aside a contrary verdict as not justified by the evidence or as contrary to the law applicable to the case.

1945In Bartley v. Fritz, 205 Minn. 192, 197 , 285 N. W. 484, 486 , this court stated the general rule as follows: “A verdict may be directed in those unequivocal cases where it clearly appears to the court on trial that it would be its duty to set aside a contrary verdict as not justified by the evidence or as contrary to the law applicable to the case.

1931Co. v. Penrod, 103 Minn. 69 , 114 N. W. 257 , the court stated the general rule in this state, that if jurisdiction over defendant has been obtained by proper service in the main action, the several steps in the garnishee proceeding are not jurisdictional as to him.

1931Co. v. Penrod, 103 Minn. 69 , 114 N. W. 257 , the court stated the general rule in this state, that if jurisdiction over defendant has been obtained by proper service in the main action, the several steps in the garnishee proceeding are not jurisdictional as to him.