Hansen v. City of Saint Paul
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
0. Russell Olson, Justice. *
Plaintiffs appeal from an order for summary judgment 1 in favor of defendant city. The trial court concluded the city was immune from liability for the negligence alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint because of the discretionary function exception of Minn. St. 466.03, subd. 6. We reverse.
On a motion for summary judgment, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party — in this case, plaintiffs. Dempsey v. Jaroscak, 290 Minn. 405, 188 N. W. 2d 779 (1971); Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 70 N. W. 2d 351 (1955).
Briefly, such view of the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Dalehite v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Sauter Ex Rel. Benson v. SauterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
- Smullen v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1971
- Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1972
- Silver v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- Cracraft v. City of St. Louis ParkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
- Enghauser Manufacturing Co. v. Eriksson Engineering Ltd.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
- Cairl v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Nusbaum v. County of Blue EarthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. City of Mounds ViewSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1994
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.