Legal Opinion
Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Chisholm v. Norman
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided May 19, 2005No. A03-1613PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HANSON, Justice.
We review the question of whether appellant Chisholm Housing and Redevelopment Authority (CHRA) is obligated to continue to pay health insurance premiums for the benefit of respondent Carolee E. Norman, a retired former employee. Norman bases her claim on a promise from CHRA, contained in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in effect when she retired, to pay the health insurance premiums for qualified employees. CHRA argues that Minn.Stat. § 179A.20, subd. 2a (2004), limits the authority of CHRA to obligate itself to pay retiree healthcare costs beyond the term of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Litton Financial Printing Div., Litton Business Systems, Inc. v. NLRBSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Blattner v. ForsterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Del Hayes & Sons, Inc. v. MitchellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
- Poole v. City of WaterburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
- AFSCME Councils 6, 14, 65 & 96, AFL-CIO v. SundquistSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Sound of Music Co. v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007
- Savela v. City of DuluthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2011
- BP Products North America Inc. v. Twin Cities Stores, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2007
- Thomsen v. Famous Dave's of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2010
- Meriwether Minnesota Land & Timber, LLC v. StateCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2012
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.