Stainbrook v. Minnesota Department of Public Safety
District Court, D. Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
Wilhelmina M. .Wright, United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ joint motion to.approve their settlement agreement ,and joint request for a stay. (Dkt. 39.) Because the parties’ settlement agreement is conditioned on Minnesota governmental action that has. not come to pass and is uncertain, the Court holds in abeyance as premature the parties’ joint motion to approve the settlement agreement. The Court grants the joint motion to stay these proceedings to permit the parties to seek legislative action as to the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement.
BA…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Lewis v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Landis v. North American Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Clinton v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2013
- Horne v. FloresSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Ana Melgar v. OK FoodsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2018
- Attaway v. Hydrostatic Oil Tools, Inc.District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 2022
- Bates v. Spa City Steaks, Inc.District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 2019
- Craven v. Neeley's Service Center, Inc.District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 2021
- Dolphin v. TMT Little Rock IncDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 2021
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.