|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockton v. Auren and Siedschlag
|
05/05/08 |
| Plaintiff, a 57-year old with a history of medical problems including seizures, became confused and disoriented while trying to pay his town home association dues. He ended up at the back door of the wrong unit of his town home association (in his slippers) and the woman inside called the police. The police arrived, and despite our client’s obvious disorientation, lack of aggressiveness, and frail appearance, the police threw him to the ground with so much force that he fractured his hip. The defendant officers moved for summary judgment, claiming their actions were reasonable and that they were protected by qualified immunity. The court disagreed and denied the motion. The case settled shortly thereafter. |
|
|
|
Ngo v. Storlie, 495 F.3d 597
|
07/26/07 |
On claim that defendant, a Minneapolis police officer, violated plaintiff's civil right by shooting him while he was working as an undercover police officer, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity; plaintiff presented sufficient evidence in support of his claim to allow a reasonable jury to find that the use of force was not objectively reasonable; further, there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a reasonable officer faced with the circumstances would have believed his conduct - firing a semi-automatic weapon at a kneeling, unarmed man - was legal. |
|
|
|
|
|
Kuehl v. Metropolitan Airports Commission
|
07/17/07 |
| The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court's denial of the Metropolitan Airport Commission's motion for summary judgment. In granting dismissal to the MAC, the court of appeals held the mere slipperiness doctrine was applicable to the facts of the case because plaintiff could not establish the parking ramp where she fell was operated by the MAC for profit. Moreover, the court of appeals held the "artificial condition" exception to the application of the mere slipperiness doctrine did not apply because the slope of a parking surface is not an artifical condition within the scope of the exception. |
|
|
|
Saarela v. Minnesota FAIR Plan
|
07/15/07 |
| Summary dismissal of bad faith, misrepresentation, and Unfair Claims Practices Act claims against defendant Minnesota FAIR Plan. The judge further limited the scope of available insurance coverage and allowed FAIR Plan's counterclaims to advance to trial. |
|
|
|
New York Schools Insurance Reciprocal v. Honeywell
|
06/27/07 |
| Summary judgment in service contract case involving $13 million school fire where court found contract did not create a duty to inspect and redesign fire suppression system. (NY State Supreme Court, Suffolk County) |
|
|
|
Brand v. Holmes Group
|
06/13/07 |
| Summary judgment granted in favor ofDefendant client, the Holmes Group, Inc.- a manufacturer of humidifiers. All of Plaintiff’s claims of products liability and negligence wholly dismissed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tonicstar Limited v. Lovegreen Turbine Services, Inc., Flint Hills Resources, LP
|
08/25/06 |
In a declaratory judgment action, the U.S. District Court of Minnesota ruled that the client insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured in an underlying case that alleg ed the insured left rags in a compressor and caused $1.7 million in property damage and business income losses. The court found that the underlying plaintiff's damages were caused by the insured's "abandoned and unused materials," thus excepting it from the client insurer's Products-Completed Operations Hazard coverage of the CGL policy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hies v. Acordia of Minnesota
|
04/26/06 |
Ordering transfer of an employee's preemptively filed Wisconsin declaratory judgment action to Minnesota and rejecting application of Wisconsin law to nonsolicitation dispute centered in Minnesota. |
|
|
