Legal Opinion
Anker v. Little
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided December 19, 1995No. C4-95-1575PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SHORT, Judge.
On appeal from a grant of summary judgment, Sol Anker argues the trial court erred by construing Minn.Stat. § 169.685, subd. 4 to apply to crashworthiness actions, and that this application of the statute violates his rights under the Minnesota and United States Constitutions.
FACTS
On December 30, 1993, Sol Anker and his wife were passengers in a rented Ford Tempo. While a friend drove the automobile, Anker sat in the right rear passenger’s seat and his wife sat in the front passenger’s seat. Anker’s wife wore an automatic shoulder belt, but had not engaged the…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Morgan v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Gaylon Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1993
- Daly v. General Motors Corp.California Supreme Court · 1978
- Hibbing Education Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations BoardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Olson v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
- Bishop v. Takata Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2000
- Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. League of Minnesota Cities Insurance TrustSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
- Schlotz v. Hyundai Motor Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1997
- Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth-DodgeCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.