Austin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
Murphy, Justice.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment for defendant. Both parties moved for summary judgment upon the pleadings, depositions, and an affidavit of one of the attorneys. It is the contention of plaintiff that the court erred in determining that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law within the purview of Rule 56, Rules of Civil Procedure.
It appears from the record that plaintiff, Ema Austin, age 63, was employed by Stirneman-Selover Realty Company, a building-management firm, to clean floors and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Christianson v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
- Connolly v. Nicollet HotelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1959
- Schmanski v. Church of St. Casimir of WellsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Ponticas v. K.M.S. InvestmentsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. AndaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
- Hellman v. Julius Kolesar, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- Vogt v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1967
- Miskovich v. Independent School District 318District Court, D. Minnesota · 2002
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.