Loven v. City of Minneapolis
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BERTRAND PORITSKY, Judge *
Appellants brought an action in district court seeking basic economic loss benefits from the respondent city of Minneapolis pursuant to the no-fault insurance act. Minn.Stat. § 65B.44 (1998). The district court ruled that the limits in the municipal tort liability law, Minn.Stat. § 466.04 (1998), applied to recovery of no-fault benefits from the city. Because we conclude as a matter of law that these limits do not apply, we reverse.
FACTS
At the Holidazzle parade in downtown Minneapolis on December 4, 1998, a city-owned police van driven by a police officer went…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Martinco v. HastingsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1963
- Wilson v. City of EaganSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- McClain v. BegleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1991
- Anker v. LittleCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
- Ronning v. Citizens Security Mutual Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Loven v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
- Western National Insurance Co. v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010