Legal Opinion

Bahr v. City of Litchfield

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided March 18, 1988No. C9-86-1757PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

COYNE, Justice.

We granted the petition of the City of Litchfield and the Litchfield Police Civil Service Commission for further review to address the question of the requisite notice to commence the 60-day limitation period during which a writ of certiorari may issue to review a decision of a civil service commission. Minn.Stat. § 606.01 (1986). In reversing the trial court, the court of appeals held that the statutory time period does not begin to run until the party adversely affected is personally served with written notice of the order or other proceeding to be reviewed. Bahr v. City of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. McGinnis v. Police Civil Service CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
  2. Plunkett v. First National Bank of AustinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
  3. State Ex Rel. Kruse v. WebsterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
  4. In Re Judicial Ditch No. 2, Houston CountySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
  5. Bahr v. City of LitchfieldCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Dietz v. Dodge CountySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
  2. In Re the Occupational License of HaymesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
  3. State Ex Rel. Archabal v. County of HennepinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
  4. County of Washington v. City of Oak Park HeightsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
  5. Graham v. Itasca County Planning CommissionCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API