Legal Opinion
Mary Cocchiarella v. Donald Driggs
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided August 31, 2016No. A14-1876PublishedCited by 42 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DIETZEN, Justice.
The question presented in this appeal is whether a person must physically occupy a dwelling in a residential building to qualify as a “residential tenant” under Minnesota’s unlawful exclusion or removal statute, MinmStat. § 504B.375 (2014). Appellant Mary Cocchiarella brought an unlawful exclusion petition under the statute to enforce her agreement with respondent Donald Driggs to rent an apartment located in Hennepin County. Driggs requested and received the first month’s rent and a security deposit, and agreed to rent the residential premises to Cocchiarella. He…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- American Family Insurance Group v. SchroedlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
- Park Nicollet Clinic v. HamannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2011
- Staab v. Diocese of St. CloudSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- Laura L. Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
- Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Cruz-Guzman v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2018
- James Ariola, as next of kin of, and trustee for, the Estate of Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son, and the Class of Beneficiaries, Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 573.02 v. The City of Stillwater, MinnesotaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017
- Phone Recovery Servs., LLC v. Qwest Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2018
- Ouradnik v. OuradnikSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2018
- Cent. Hous. Assocs., LP v. OlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2019
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.