Legal Opinion
Norman v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Chisholm
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided May 25, 2004No. A03-1613PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HARTEN, Judge.
Respondent, a retired public employee, obtained a summary judgment requiring appellant, a public employer, to continue paying respondent’s insurance premiums. Appellant challenges the summary judgment. We affirm.
FACTS
Respondent Carolee Norman worked for appellant Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Chisholm. She was a member of Minnesota Council 65-AFSCME Chapter of Local # 586 (the union). The union and appellant negotiated a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that became effective in January 1993. It provided:
All employees who have reached an age acceptable to…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Cooper v. FrenchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- O'MALLEY v. Ulland Bros.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
- Christensen v. Minneapolis Municipal Employees Retirement BoardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- Olson v. Synergistic Technologies Business Systems, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
- Faimon v. Winona State UniversityCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Chisholm v. NormanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
- Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Chisholm v. NormanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
- State v. SellhausenWisconsin Supreme Court · 2012