Kowalewski v. City of Hastings
District Court, D. Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
DONOVAN, District Judge.
Defendant City of Hastings has filed a motion in each of these three cases for summary judgment in its favor, in accordance with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. Subsequently plaintiffs were allowed to amend their complaints.1 Defendant City now renews its' motion claiming that the amendments are sham and frivolous and present no genuine issue of fact. The motion is based on the pleadings, affidavits and depositions on file.
On or about June 2, 1951, the three plaintiffs were involved in an accident while driving together over a state trunk…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Doehler Metal Furniture Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- Paul v. FaricySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
- Automatic Signal Advertising Co. v. BabcockSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
- Lundstrom v. GiacomoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1935
- Carlander v. Dubuque Fire & Marine Ins.District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1949
3Cited by1 opinion
- Markham v. City of Newport News, Va.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 1960