Legal Opinion

Loven v. City of Minneapolis

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided May 15, 2001No. C5-00-1925PublishedCited by 2 opinions

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

  1. Martinco v. HastingsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1963
  2. Wilson v. City of EaganSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  3. McClain v. BegleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1991
  4. Anker v. LittleCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
  5. 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

  1. Loven v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
  2. Western National Insurance Co. v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API