Legal Opinion

Mullins v. Churchill

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided September 5, 2000No. C6-00-170, C2-00-358, C8-00-378 and C9-00-390PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

RANDALL, Judge.

Appellants, who are inmates at state correctional facilities, challenge summary judgment granted to prison officials and employees in consolidated actions in which three of four appellants alleged prison personnel violated Minn.Stat. § 481.10 (1998), which states that inmates must be afforded “reasonable telephone access” to an attorney. The fourth appellant, who is also a prison inmate, raised a negligence claim against prison personnel and asserts on appeal that the district court failed to address his claim. We affirm.

FACTS

Appellants Wesley Ross Mullins, Ronal-do…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Minnesota v. OlsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. Thiele v. StichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  3. State Ex Rel. Cooper v. FrenchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  4. Fabio v. BellomoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
  5. Tuma v. Commissioner of Economic SecuritySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Swanny of Hugo, Inc., d/b/a Carpenter's Steak House v. Integrity Mutual Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API