Legal Opinion
Kroschel v. City of Afton
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided March 8, 1994No. C3-93-1661PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DAVIES, Judge.
Appellants commenced this action seeking a declaratory judgment that respondents have either the duty or the authority to defend, or to reimburse them for costs and attorney fees incurred to defend, an action alleging that appellants violated the open meeting law. The trial court granted summary judgment for respondents. The trial court also granted $500 in attorney fees for each respondent. We affirm the grant of attorney fees, but otherwise reverse and remand.
FACTS
Appellants were defendants in an action brought by an Afton resident against the mayor of Afton and two…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & ClinicsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Tuma v. Commissioner of Economic SecuritySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Solon v. SolonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Swenson v. Emerson Electric Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Wright v. City of DanvilleIllinois Supreme Court · 1996
- Kroschel v. City of AftonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1994
- Wright v. City of DanvilleIllinois Supreme Court · 1996