Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re Pera Police & Fire Plan Line of Duty Disability Benefits of Brittain

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 7, 2006No. A04-2407Published

1DissentGildea, Justice

I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority that Minn.Stat. § 353.656, subd. 1 (2004) is unambiguous and that the meaning of the words “any act of duty” in subdivision 1 is not “restricted to hazardous situations.” I also agree with the majority’s conclusion that the issue in this case is whether Brittain’s injury was “incurred in or [arose] out of any act of duty” (in accordance with subdivision 1) or whether the injury occurred “while not on duty as a police officer” (in accordance with subdivision 3). I part company with the majority on the resolution of this fact question, which the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Dokmo v. Independent School District No. 11Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  2. State Ex Rel. Spurck v. Civil Service BoardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
  3. In re the Pera Police & Fire Plan Line of Duty Disability Benefits of BrittainCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API