Legal Opinion

Save Our Creeks v. City of Brooklyn Park

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided July 6, 2004No. A03-1794PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

LANSING, Judge.

The City of Brooklyn Park appeals from an order denying its motion to dismiss respondent corporation Save Our Creeks’s (SOC) declaratory-judgment action. The city argues that the district court erred in concluding that a complaint signed by a nonlawyer on behalf of SOC, in derogation of the rule that a corporation must be represented by counsel in a legal proceeding, could be amended to add an attorney’s signature. The city also argues that the district court erred in allowing the amendment to relate back to the original pleading to forestall the running of the statute…

2Cases cited40 opinions

  1. Kontrick v. RyanSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Scarborough v. PrincipiSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  3. Becker v. MontgomerySupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  4. Edelman v. Lynchburg CollegeSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  5. State v. AmosSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. GrahamSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2009
  2. Save Our Creeks v. City of Brooklyn ParkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
  3. James Ariola, as next of kin of, and trustee for, the Estate of Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son, and the Class of Beneficiaries, Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 573.02 v. The City of Stillwater, MinnesotaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017
  4. Peterson v. 2004 Ford Crown Victoria Vin: 2FAHP74WX4X158445Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010
  5. Metro Building Companies v. RAM Buildings, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API