Legal Opinion
Thuma v. Kroschel
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided September 7, 1993No. C6-92-2535PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HUSPENI, Judge.
Appellants contend the trial court erred in concluding they violated the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, Minn.Stat. § 471.705, subd. 1 (1990) and in imposing a $100 civil penalty on each of them pursuant to.Minn.Stat. § 471.-705, subd. 2 (1990). Appellants also claim the trial court erred in denying their interlocutory motion for dismissal and summary judgment and seek sanctions pursuant to Minn.R.Civ.P. 11 and Minn.Stat. § 549.21, subd. 2 (1990). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
FACTS
Respondent Margaret H. Thuma, a resident of Afton, Minnesota, commenced this suit…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Flast v. CohenSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & ClinicsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Reserve Mining Co. v. HerbstSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Ashcroft v. MattisSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- McComas v. Bd. of Educ. of Fayette CountyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1996
- Manning v. State, Department of Fish & GameAlaska Supreme Court · 2015
- Hoeft v. Hennepin CountyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2008
- Murray v. PulsCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
- Kroschel v. City of AftonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.