Legal Opinion

Olander v. Sperry and Hutchinson Company

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 28, 1972No. 43121PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Todd, Justice.

This appeal questions the extension by the trial court of the doctrine of strict compliance, previously applied to the requirements of Minn. St. 466.05 relating to the time and manner of service of notice of tort claims against municipalities, to the other provisions of the statute relating to notice of “the time, place, and circumstances” of the loss or injury and to “the amount of compensation or other relief demanded.” We now adopt the doctrine of substantial compliance with regard to the description of the time, place, and circumstances of the loss or injury. We accordingly…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Spanel v. Mounds View School District No. 621Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
  2. Nicol v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
  3. Szroka v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
  4. Hirth v. Village of Long PrairieSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
  5. Lyons v. City of Red WingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Urban Renewal Agency v. LackeyOregon Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Hestbeck v. Hennepin CountySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
  3. Kossak v. StallingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  4. Kelly v. City of RochesterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  5. Seifert v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API