Legal Opinion
Jindra v. City of St. Anthony
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided June 27, 1995No. C7-94-2175PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
AMUNDSON, Judge.
Appellants Michael and Carol Jindra challenge the district court order granting summary judgment in favor of respondent city of St. Anthony, arguing that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on three causes of action: negligence, nuisance, and a statutory claim based on the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act (MERLA). We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.
FACTS
The Jindras live in a split-level home on Hilldale Avenue in the city of St. Anthony. The city owns and operates the main municipal sanitary sewer line which runs under…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Fabio v. BellomoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
- Jack Frost, Inc. v. Engineered Building Components Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- Larson v. Township of New Haven, Olmsted CountySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
- Pettinger v. Village of WinnebagoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1953
- Lawin v. City of Long PrairieCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
3Cited by4 opinions
- Fickling v. City of CharlestonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2007
- State v. EllenbergerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
- Christopherson v. City of Albert LeaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
- Major v. City of HartsvilleSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2014