Legal Opinion
Harford v. University of Minnesota
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided January 26, 1993No. C4-92-1187PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DAVIES, Judge.
Dissatisfied with a decision arrived at through the University of Minnesota’s internal grievance procedure, appellant Earl Harford brought breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation actions in district court. The district court granted the university’s motion for summary judgment. Harford contests the district court’s application of res judicata and collateral estop-pel. Harford also challenges the court’s finding that the university did not deny his right to due process. We affirm.
FACTS
On April 14,1978, appellant Earl Harford began employment with respondent…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Wood v. StricklandSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Reserve Mining Co. v. HerbstSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- United States v. Radio Corp. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Honn v. City of Coon RapidsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- Ellis v. Minneapolis Commission on Civil RightsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Ganguli v. University of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
- Shaw v. Board of Regents of the University of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
- D.H. Blattner & Sons, Inc. v. Firemen's Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
- Duluth Steam Cooperative Ass'n v. RingsredCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
- Chronopoulos v. University of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.