Legal Opinion
Familystyle of St. Paul, Inc. v. City of St. Paul
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided January 18, 1990No. 3-89 CIV 459PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
ALSOP, Chief Judge.
The above entitled matter came before the court December 27,1989 on motions for summary judgment. Familystyle of St. Paul, Inc. (“Familystyle”) and the City of St. Paul have both moved for summary judgment. The Attorney General has not formally noticed a motion, but agrees that summary judgment is appropriate at this time and has requested that judgment be entered in his favor. The parties have signed a “Stipulation of Facts” for the purposes of this motion and certain other facts recited by the parties are not disputed. Summary judgment is therefore appropriate…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- United Steelworkers of America v. WeberSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- United States of America, Appellant-Appellee v. City of Black Jack, Missouri, Appellee-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1975
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- John Gamble Fie A. Gamble Life Care Residences, Inc., Doing Business as Oak Hill Residential Care v. City of EscondidoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
- Stewart B. McKinney Foundation, Inc. v. Town Plan & Zoning CommissionDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1992
- Larkin v. State Of Michigan Department Of Social ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1996
- Cason v. Rochester Housing AuthorityDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1990
- Cavalieri-Conway v. L. Butterman & AssociatesDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1998
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.