Legal Opinion
Loven v. City of Minneapolis
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided March 7, 2002No. C5-00-1925PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ANDERSON, RUSSELL A., Justice.
Respondents brought actions against the City of Minneapolis seeking tort damages and basic economic loss benefits under the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act (“No-Fault Act”) for injuries resulting from the crash of a police van into a crowd of people. The city moved for partial summary judgment declaring that the municipal tort liability cap of $750,000 includes any payments the city is required to make to respondents under the No-Fault Act. After finding that the no-fault benefits sought were in the nature of tort damages and were to be…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Brookfield Trade Center, Inc. v. County of RamseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
- Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- Lienhard v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Snyder v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- Watson v. Metropolitan Transit CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. League of Minnesota Cities Insurance TrustSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
- Western National Insurance Co. v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010
- McCarty v. City of MinneapolisCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2002
- Munoz v. KihlgrenCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2003