Legal Opinion
Hasnudeen v. Onan Corp.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided August 29, 1996No. CX-94-2106PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
COYNE, Justice.
We granted the petition of defendant Onan Corporation for further review of a decision of the court of appeals for the limited purpose of clarifying the relationship between this court’s analysis in Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., 417 N.W.2d 619 (Minn.1988) and the pronouncement of the United States Supreme Court in St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 515, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 2751-52, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) in the context of the claims of plaintiffs Robert Hasnudeen and Tracy Hines that under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn.Stat. § 363.03…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- St. Mary's Honor Center v. HicksSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Price Waterhouse v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Sigurdson v. Isanti CountySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortgage BankingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
- In Re Welfare of D.M.D.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
- Kovatovich v. K-Mart Corp.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1999
- Lapoint v. OrthodonticsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2017
- Phong Thi Doan v. Medtronic, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1997
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.