Legal Opinion
Hvamstad v. Suhler
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided December 29, 1989No. 3-89 CIV 462PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FINDINGS OF UNDISPUTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ALSOP, Chief Judge.
The above entitled matter came before the court on December 1, 1989 on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff had previously filed a motion for a preliminary injunction that was suspended pending the present decision on the merits. Both parties agree there are no genuine issues of fact. Therefore, based upon the arguments and memoranda of counsel, and upon all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the court hereby makes the following findings of undisputed facts and conclusions of law.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for VincentSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Roberts v. United States JayceesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Sanitation and Recycling Industry, Inc. v. City of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1996
- Bailey v. City of National CityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- State v. HolmbergCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
- Bay Area Factors v. Target Stores, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1997
- Boyle v. AndersonDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1994
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.