condition was present for such a period of time so as to constitute constructive notice of the hazard. Anderson v. St. Thomas More Newman Ctr., 287 Minn. 251, 253, 178 N.W.2d 242, 243-44 (1970). But speculation as to who caused the dangerous condition, or how long it existed, warrants judgment for the landowner. See Bob Useldinger & Sons, Inc., v. Hangsleben, 505 N.W.2d 323, 328 (Minn.1993) (affirming grant of summary judgment where nonmoving party engages in mere speculation and conjecture); Messner, 238 Minn, at 413-15, 57 N.W.2d at 661-62 (grant of judgment notwithstanding verdict proper where there was no direct evidence as to how a banana peel came to be on the floor, or how long it had been there). Appellant did not present any evidence showing who 01 N.W.2d 427, 430 (Minn.1960) (<HOLDING>). The district court correctly ordered summary
holding that the officers were justified in conducting a protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest on outstanding warrants because the officers had information that the defendant was suspected of running a methamphetamine operation on the premises other people were living there and assisting the defendant and at the time the sweep began the defendant had not yet been located holding evidence insufficient to support conviction when none of the defendants had any proprietary interest nor previous association with the premises and there was no evidence of how long the defendants had been on the premises prior to the arrival of the police holding that plaintiff failed to show that the defendant had constructive notice of gum on a stair where there was evidence that defendant had been diligent in keeping the premises clean and the source of the gum and length of time the gum remained on the stair were undetermined holding that the plaintiff had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish constructive notice because the plaintiff did not present any evidence to establish that the oil was on the floor for any length of time holding evidence insufficient to support conviction for possession when none of the defendants had any proprietary interest nor previous association with the premises and there was no evidence of how long the defendants had been on the premises prior to the arrival of the police