Legal Opinion
Leonzal v. Grogan
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided May 17, 1994No. C2-93-1635PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SHORT, Judge.
This personal injury action arose when police responded to a 911 call. David and Sharon Leonzal sued their neighbors and the City of Duluth for assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, deprivation of civil rights, outrageous and reckless disregard for rights, and abuse of government process. The city moved for summary judgment on the basis of vicarious official immunity. The Leonzals abandoned their claims against the city for deprivation of civil rights and abuse of process. On appeal from the trial court’s denial of immunity, the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Thiele v. StichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & ClinicsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Elwood v. County of RiceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Rico v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1991
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Ireland v. Crow's Nest Yachts, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
- Olmanson v. Le Sueur CountyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
- Kelly v. City of MinneapolisCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1998
- Brown v. City of BloomingtonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005
- Brown v. City of BloomingtonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005