Legal Opinion · Dissent

Smith v. City of Owatonna

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided July 12, 1989No. C5-88-1789Published

1DissentSchumacher, Judge

I respectfully dissent. I believe the city had no rational basis for requiring some, but not all, property owners to install their own gas service lines; therefore, the city’s actions denied respondents equal protection.

The sole evidence presented by the city to justify its actions was the testimony of the OPUC general manager, Dave Martin. As a city employee, and a person intimately involved in all the projects in question in this case, Martin was certainly an interested party and his testimony was suspect. See Rohling v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 309 Minn. 258, 260, 243 N.W.2d…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Rud v. FloodCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
  2. Rohling v. American Family Mutual Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976

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

Powered by the Exa API